Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [Lords]

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [4th November] as relates to the City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill [Lords], the Kent County Council Bill [Lords] and the Medway Council Bill [Lords] be now considered.

Resolved,
That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Territorial Army

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: What is the current strength of the Territorial Army. [96122]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): On the basis of the most recently available data, the strength of the Territorial Army was some 45,000 on 1 September this year.

Mrs. Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman congratulate A company of the third battalion of The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment? In my constituency, it really took to heart what was said a year ago—that it should contribute to a "heavyweight role" rather than being simply "weekend warriors". It has 11 officers serving overseas, which includes Bosnia and Kosovo. It is, however, deeply disturbed by the lack of resources to train them. The resources and commitment that featured in the rhetoric simply have not been delivered in practice.
What response does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make, especially in the light of the Defence Committee

report published today? According to that report, the Ministry of Defence will have to work very hard
to demonstrate that the smaller TA truly is better trained than in the past, and better suited for its role in supporting the regular Army.

Mr. Hoon: I certainly congratulate the Territorial Army in the right hon. Lady's constituency, and I am confident that the proposals in the strategic defence review will contribute to its attempts to become part of an effective contribution to the regular armed forces. I have not had an opportunity to read the Select Committee report in any great detail, but I will do so and will give the right hon. Lady and the House a more detailed response in due course.
I note that the report is thoroughly well-balanced. The Committee recognises the need to monitor the level of overstretch in our armed forces. It concludes that it is too early to judge the overall health of the Territorial Army and the other reserve forces, but makes specific reference to the new reserves training and mobilisation centre at Chilwell—a place that I know very well, because it is close to my constituency. The report says that it should be regarded as having been a success so far, and that it is a valuable asset.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is dismay in Wales not only at the cut in numbers, but at the potential lowering of the quality of the TA's activities? Is he aware that earlier undertakings to maintain ancillary staff such as caretakers and others involved in the locations where they train have been reneged on, and that redundancies are now being made which make it difficult to keep the weaponry and stocks in those centres? Will the right hon. Gentleman now undertake to look at the figures, and to ensure that there is no reduction in quality, over and above the reduction in quantity?

Mr. Hoon: I shall examine the figures and the concerns raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but let me make it clear that the whole point of restructuring the TA is to make it more relevant and more usable, and thus to enhance the quality of its contribution to our regular forces.

Mr. Robert Key: May I be the first to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, from the Opposition Dispatch Box, on his recent appointment? We know that he must have one of the very best jobs in the Government.
Will the right hon. Gentleman reverse the damage to the TA that has occurred since the strategic defence review? It has been cut by 18,000. We were told that there would be no compulsory call-up, but the Government have changed their mind. We were told that TA members would no longer be trained as formed units, but we now hear that they are to be deployed as formed units. Given that the number of TA members volunteering to serve with the regulars has apparently halved in the past six months, and given that employers are becoming reluctant to take on TA members, will the right hon. Gentleman accept the unanimous advice of the Defence Committee


report, which was published this morning, suspend further reductions in the TA, and reconsider its post-SDR establishment size?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes, although I am not so sure about the rest of his comments. I shall not repeat the points that I have already made about the basis of the SDR in relation to the TA, but I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about compulsory mobilisation.
A Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a strong supporter and, no doubt, proud to be a member, encouraged the passing of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. That Act allowed for the compulsory mobilisation of members of the Territorial Army—something that members of the TA have broadly welcomed, recognising that it gives them the opportunity to participate effectively in active service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not make the same criticism again. It is clear to me that compulsory mobilisation adds to the quality of our reserve forces, and allows them to make a much more effective contribution in the real world than they may have been able to make in the past.

Dr. Nick Palmer: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his kind remarks about the Chilwell mobilisation base in my constituency, whose opening I attended. Is he aware that enthusiasm for the new task is extremely high in the base, and that those to whom I have spoken are somewhat baffled by the Conservatives' idea that it is possible to have a reserve force that turns up or does not turn up when called on, according to individual whim?

Mr. Hoon: I live close to the Chilwell base, and I know a number of people who work from there. It is my strong impression that those people welcome the changes that the Government promoted in the SDR, and want the TA to play an effective role alongside the regular forces.

Manning and Recruitment

Mr. Robert Syms: If he will make a statement on the manning and recruitment targets for the armed forces. [96123]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Achievement of full manning is a key objective of the strategic defence review. The Navy expects to achieve full manning balance by April 2002, the Army by April 2005, and the RAF by April 2001. Recruiting across the three services is buoyant. The Royal Marines are having their best year since 1994, and all services report that they are on course to hit targets.

Mr. Syms: Following the SDR, we have had reductions in manpower and money for regular and reserve forces. The armed services are clearly suffering from overstretch, and the resulting pressures are causing many people to leave early. We now hear that the Government's magic solution is the recruitment of young offenders. Is it not a

sad commentary on the Government and an indictment of their policy that they have to scour prisons for recruits for the next century?

Mr. Spellar: I find it surprising that the Member of Parliament representing Poole did not welcome the good figures for the Royal Marines, which are positive news for his area. Current recruitment figures are the best for a decade. That is partly due to the excellent advertising campaign, the very good recruiting being undertaken on the ground, and the clear messages being given to a range of possible audiences about the attraction of a career in the armed forces. That should be welcomed.
The hon. Gentleman made some facile comments about stories in the press today. He should welcome the fact that, when appropriate, properly selected individuals will be given a second chance in life. Allowing them to serve their country will be good for them, good for the country and good for the armed forces. I think that it is good news, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so churlish about it.

Ms Dari Taylor: My hon. Friend has talked about the general recruitment targets. He has also set some demanding targets for the recruitment of ethnic minorities. How are those targets being met? There are also demanding targets for the recruitment of women. What progress is being made on those targets?

Mr. Spellar: We have set a target of a 1 per cent. increase per year in recruitment from the ethnic communities. That means 3 per cent. of total recruitment this year, 4 per cent. next year and 5 per cent. the year after. The Army looks to be on course to hit those targets. The other two services may not, but the Commission for Racial Equality is enormously enthusiastic about the success that we are having and encouraged by it. All the services have run ethnic recruitment operations around the country, including some run on a tri-service basis. The ethnic recruitment teams have shown enormous enthusiasm and have achieved a good deal of success with their target audience. We do not have a target figure for the recruitment of women, but it is pleasing that 13.2 per cent. of new recruits this year are women. That is an increase in the percentage, which means that we are drawing from a larger pool to get the best of our young people for our armed forces.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is the Minister aware that figures supplied by the House of Commons Library show that in only two of the past eight years have the targets for Army recruitment been met? Is it not clear from those figures, for which the previous Government must take some responsibility, that the failure to recruit adequately is a factor in current overstretch? In those circumstances, is it not unimaginative to reject out of hand the proposal to recruit young offenders, as long as there is no compulsion; those selected demonstrate a genuine desire to lead a more constructive life; and there is careful screening and selection?

Mr. Spellar: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is unfortunate that some people have so cavalierly rejected an initiative that could give some youngsters who have taken a wrong turn in life an


opportunity to make the right turn and become useful citizens who contribute to this country. The armed forces will implement all the safeguards that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has outlined. The scheme could give people a second chance and would be good for the country, good for the services and good for the individuals.

Mr. Brian Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend send my congratulations, and those of many hon. Members, to the various recruiting departments for the innovation to which he has referred? He knows my involvement with young people, particularly in our cadet forces. What appalled me for many years was the reluctance to take on youngsters who had committed a misdemeanour in the past. Youngsters sometimes go astray because of their environment. Does my hon. Friend agree that the very structure to which those youngsters can now look forward will give them a second chance and will help them to take the path that we as a society would most welcome, rather than the alternative to which some appear willing to condemn them?

Mr. Spellar: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, and I want to stress the restrictions and careful safeguards in the exercise. Certain offences will not be ignored. The rules were changed a few years ago to enable people who had served a limited prison sentence to join the armed forces. These proposals, which have been worked out carefully with the Prison Service, would enable those concerned to take courses to show them what life in the services would be like after they have served their sentence. That is encouraging, and shows that the armed forces are taking an imaginative approach. At the same time, it offers a real opportunity to youngsters who may have had an unstructured life to get into the structured life of the armed services, to make something of themselves and to contribute to this country. The forces are warmly to be congratulated on their initiative in this respect.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Despite the Minister's bluster, the reality is that, since the Government came to power, the commitment of Her Majesty's forces is at a level unprecedented at any time since the second world war. Even on best estimates, the level of commitment will be significantly higher than that which the Government inherited. It is not just a matter of recruitment, but of retention of service personnel—between 900 and 1,100 men are leaving the Army alone every month. The situation has got so bad that the Government have had to produce a document for service families which says:
We want to make it easier for them to keep in touch with their families, and give them more time together when they return.
Their time spent together gets less and less because of Government policies. What are the Government going to do about it?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman should tell the House and the nation which of those commitments he would not have undertaken. Would he pull our troops from the streets of Northern Ireland? Does he think that we should not have participated in the NATO operation in Kosovo? The Opposition's foreign affairs spokesman thinks that we should not have participated in East Timor, and that we should have left our friends and allies from Australia

in the lurch. Those are our commitments. When we came into office, the level of commitment was 29 per cent., which increased to 47 per cent. at its peak. It is now back down to 35 per cent. We are taking measures in Kosovo and Bosnia to reduce that level, and we are implementing a welfare package. We get no answer from the Conservatives as to which commitments they would cut and which operations they think we should not have undertaken. Theirs is a facile view, and there is no joined-up thinking between the Opposition's foreign affairs and defence spokesmen.

Procurement

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: What discussions he has had with his EU colleagues about improved co—operation in defence procurement. [96124]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement are in the process of meeting their European colleagues to take this important issue forward, both on a bilateral and on a multilateral basis.

Mr. Bradshaw: Is the Minister aware that Europe spends about two thirds of what America spends on defence, but that European taxpayers gets less than 20 per cent. of American capability for their money? Does he agree with the Deputy Secretary of State of the United States, Strobe Talbott, who said recently in London that America wanted to see
a strong, integrated, self-confident and militarily capable Europe"?
Will he ignore the anti-Europeanism of the Conservative party and push forward vigorously with further European defence procurement co-operation, which is good for our defence industry, good for our security and good for the British taxpayer?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The Euro-sceptic rubbish exemplified by the letter from the Opposition defence spokesman is true to form for those who put their narrow sectarian interest ahead of the national interest. Along with five of our European partners, we have signed a letter of intent which will lead to the efficiencies in procurement across Europe which we all seek. That will contribute to our collective security in the continent as a whole.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The House will welcome the action that has already been taken by major British companies in restructuring Europe's defence industries. The restructuring has led to the emergence of more multinational companies to compete more effectively with the United States, although I hope that the Minister will confirm that that development in no way envisages a Fortress Europe, as the north Atlantic links are still very strong. However, what will the Government do about security of supply, which, with multinational companies, becomes much more important?
Under the letter of intent in the OCCAR arrangements, security of supply is meant to be safe. However, when will the Government deal with the problem of giving those arrangements treaty powers, so that we really know that


we shall be able to get from multinational suppliers the equipment that we need for our armed forces when they are in action?

Mr. Kilfoyle: Those are clearly matters between the companies concerned. We look for mutual guarantees on security matters. However, I welcome the more constructive view expressed by the hon. Gentleman on the need for that type of restructuring, which was welcomed by Strobe Talbott in his speech of 7 October. I do not think that there is any danger of a division between the United States and Europe on those matters.

Atomic Weapons Establishment

Mr. Martin Salter: If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of representations concerning the holding of a public inquiry into the health, safety and environmental aspects of the work of the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston. [96125]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Aldermaston is a nuclear licensed site and is subject to independent and strict regulation by the nuclear installations inspectorate and by the Environment Agency. The regulators cover every aspect of the site's operations and procedures as they affect health, safety and the environment. They have power to enforce compliance and to close down operations if they believe such action is justified. They are publicly accountable and publish all information they believe to be significant.

Mr. Salter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that public fears and concerns have been exacerbated by the recent spate of incidents at AWE Aldermaston, including the unauthorised discharge of radioactive substances into watercourses; the impending prosecution by the Environment Agency; the descaling of the Pangbourne pipeline, resulting in the uncontrolled release of uranium and plutonium particles; and the recent well-publicised breaches of safety procedure? Does he accept that those understandable concerns and fears will be allayed only by a full, open and independent public inquiry, which is the policy of both West Berkshire council and Reading borough council, and was once, in 1994, the policy of the then Opposition?

Mr. Hoon: I recognise that there is public concern. However, safe operation is of prime importance to the atomic weapons establishment. It is also at the forefront of the minds of the operating company, the Ministry of Defence and the nuclear installations inspectorate. Claims that, in the past year, the AWE has been at risk of major nuclear accident are simply untrue. It is also false to say that the AWE has been seeking to hide anything. The incidents in the articles to which my hon. Friend refers were taken from the AWE's own safety-related incident reports, which are released into the public domain as a matter of routine—in contrast to the somewhat hysterical attitude that has been displayed by certain newspapers.
I know that my hon. Friend has taken the trouble to visit the site, and that he was impressed with how it was managed and with AWE's policy of openness. In those circumstances, I hope he will accept that, without further

specific evidence of real risk to the public, employees or the environment, there is currently simply no basis on which to hold a public inquiry.

Mr. David Rendel: My constituents are split between those who are worried about what is or may be going on at Aldermaston and those who are exasperated, as the Secretary of State said, by the way in which various scare stories are being hyped up by newspapers and others who should know better. Does the Secretary of State agree that both those groups of people would be helped by a full public and open inquiry so we know exactly what is going on and that, if the scare stories are untrue, they shall be seen as such at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Hoon: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, which is based on real public concern about the way in which those particular stories have been, as he says, hyped up in the newspapers. Nevertheless, I make it clear that the illustrations relied on, particularly by one Sunday newspaper, were ones that were routinely reported and allowed into the public domain. There is therefore nothing to hide, or to discover, which a public inquiry could reveal. It should be emphasised to local people, whether they work at the plant or not, that no present danger to the environment, the work force or the local population was found.

Mr. John Bercow: In the light of that, what assessment has the right hon. Gentleman personally made of the allegations about environmental contamination? On the strength of his inquiries, does he agree with the organisation that the claims thus far levelled against it are nothing more than irresponsible scaremongering?

Mr. Hoon: I have examined each of the incidents that the newspaper alleged amounted to a real threat to the environment and local people. The accounts were based on reports that were to be released to the local liaison committee for discussion by people in the immediate area. Having read them carefully, I have not found any credible evidence of damage to the environment, to people who work in the plant or to the local community.

Kosovo

Barbara Follett: If he will make a statement on future commitments in Kosovo. [96126]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The United Kingdom remains committed to long-term peace and stability in Kosovo, and the Balkans as a whole. KFOR has now reached its intended strength of 50,000. British troops currently contribute a framework brigade headquarters and two battle groups, plus supporting elements—about 5,000 personnel in total, down from a peak of 10,500. We keep our force levels under constant review and do not keep troops in operational theatres longer than is absolutely necessary.

Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that although we were right to send troops to Kosovo and East Timor, our current level of


commitment is taking its toll on our forces and their families, and that we should do all that we can to reduce the burden on them?

Mr. Hoon: I agree that we should aim to reduce our commitments where it is prudent to do so. I am aware of the demands placed on our armed forces and their families by the problems of overstretch. The recent withdrawals from Kosovo underline our commitment to minimise those problems, and I am pleased to tell the House that, following the recent restructuring of SFOR in Bosnia, about 900 of our service personnel will be home for Christmas. That also means that 900 personnel who were expecting to go to Bosnia will not now be deployed there.

Mr. Martin Bell: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are about 14,000 unexploded cluster bombs lying on the ground in Kosovo, which are in effect aerially sown anti-personnel mines that maim and kill the innocent almost daily? As NATO dropped those bomblets, can NATO also play some part in clearing them?

Mr. Hoon: NATO is playing a considerable part in clearing them. Indeed, United Kingdom troops have cleared more than 1,500 unexploded cluster bomb munitions from our sector—more than 80 per cent. of such unexploded ordnance in that area. KFOR as a whole has cleared more than 3,800 unexploded cluster bomb munitions, in addition to about 4,400 Serbian anti-personnel mines and 2,300 Serbian anti-tank mines.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it true that the Irish Guards is the only unit that does night patrols in Kosovo?

Mr. Hoon: I do not know, but I shall find out and write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: It is true.
May I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his job and tell him, as he already knows, how lucky he is to have it, what fun it will be, and how fascinating he will find it? In the order of battle for Kosovo, as the winter approaches and life becomes tougher, will he consider whether he can find additional engineer reserves, whose prime purpose would be to assist in the necessary work of reconstruction?

Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. When I am stuck for further information I shall know where to come.
We are considering a variety of ways in which we can assist throughout the winter. Subject to votes in the House, I hope to visit both Bosnia and Kosovo in the next few days. I will consider the hon. Gentleman's specific suggestion and see whether what he asks for is necessary and whether we can carry it through.

Mr. David Winnick: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports that deny the atrocities that occurred in Kosovo? Will he take this opportunity to make it clear that there is enough evidence to show how justified the international community was in taking military action? Is he altogether satisfied that enough is being done to protect the lives of civilian Serbs, who can

in no way be held responsible for the crimes and atrocities that occurred, from the thuggish element among the ethnic Albanians, which—however small it may be—is to a large extent the mirror image of its Serbian counterpart?

Mr. Hoon: During one of my previous ministerial responsibilities, I happened to be the Foreign Office Minister on duty when details of atrocities discovered by British forces were first made known. There is no doubt from the evidence that it was necessary for NATO to launch Operation Allied Force to prevent what was undoubtedly an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, perpetrated by the forces of Slobodan Milosevic. As for the present security situation, I have had the opportunity of visiting Kosovo and I can tell the House that it is improving. While incidents of intimidation and murder continue to occur, they are declining, and the crime rate in Pristina is lower than in some western cities.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Is not the main lesson of the high continuing commitment in Kosovo and elsewhere that this is an unsuitable time for the Foreign Secretary to offer a blank cheque of further British troops to the United Nations?

Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not offer the UN a blank cheque. The information to which the hon. Gentleman refers concerns forces that may be available to the UN in the event of their being requested. That is a standard procedure which has been in operation for many years.

Mr. Harry Cohen: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the crime rate in Kosovo is falling, but it is still high and includes ethnic killings. Will he give a commitment that western forces will act against such killings wherever they come across them? Many of the Kosovan Serbs who fled into Serbia have been treated badly there, and some will in due course wish to return to Kosovo. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that they will be welcomed back into Kosovo, which will become a better, more multi-ethnic place in the future?

Mr. Hoon: I wish to make it clear that KFOR troops are providing robust and even-handed protection for everyone in Kosovo, regardless of their ethnic, religious or cultural background. On one of my visits to Kosovo I had the opportunity to meet representatives of the Serbian community. They made it clear that their people across the border in areas controlled by Milosevic were treated badly and were anxious to return. It is obviously the responsibility of the international community to provide a secure situation in Kosovo so that they can be encouraged to go back to their homes.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post? I wish him the best of luck in what is arguably the best job in the Government. The UN document which was mentioned earlier contains a wish list of units and equipment on which it could call. It states that three aircraft capable of heavy lift would be available to the UN, but we have no such aircraft. The action in Kosovo proved the need for them. Will we rent them, or will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make the decision that


was postponed in the summer and order equipment that the armed forces want? I know that the Marines are due to go to Kosovo soon, but we also understand that as a result of the pressure on money—the Government are to cut a further…600 million in the coming Budget—the Marines will not take part in exercises in Norway, as is their usual custom.

Mr. Hoon: I shall deal with all the various points made by the hon. Gentleman but first I thank him for his kind words. He and I debated European matters when we both first arrived in the House of Commons. I am sure that his views on Europe have remained the same, and that we shall debate them again in due course.
There are two separate competitions to supply our forces' requirement for heavy-lift aircraft, in the short term and the long term. Both those competitions are under way, and I anticipate that they will both reach successful conclusions.
The decision about the marines was taken not because of lack of resources. We have heard already today about the pressure that our forces face as a result of their constant involvement in operations. Training in Norway and in Arctic conditions clearly puts a great strain on them. We have sought to relieve that strain by cancelling the operation for this particular year.

Mr. Frank Roy: I welcome the news that many service personnel will return from Bosnia in time for Christmas with their families. However, will my right hon. Friend assure me that everything will be done to ensure that those accused of war crimes in Bosnia will still be brought to justice?

Mr. Hoon: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There will be no let-up in the effort to track down those suspected of war crimes. In fact, British forces have been more successful than the forces of any other nation represented in Bosnia in bringing war criminals to justice. They have worked hard to ensure that none of those accused of war crimes escapes justice.

Procurement

Mr. Simon Burns: What changes against planned expenditure on defence procurement there have been this year. [96127]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I expect expenditure on defence systems procurement this financial year to be within the level reported in the Government's expenditure plans.

Mr. Burns: Given that an important part of the manufacturing base in Chelmsford relies on defence contracts, may I say how pleased I am that Alenia Marconi will benefit from the signing of the contract for the principal anti-aircraft missile contract. However, is the Minister confident that the smart procurement savings will be made? If not, is he prepared to make a commitment that the Government will make up from other sources the shortfall in funding for defence procurement?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am absolutely confident that all the objectives associated with smart procurement will be

reached. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to that matter, as the initiative has proved extremely attractive, in our defence budget and across Europe. I am also pleased to tell him that it is likely that Chelmsford will benefit from the principal anti-air missile for future warships project to the extent of some…100 million of investment. I do not foresee any change in that, under present circumstances.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What progress is being made on the procurement decision for the beyond visible range anti-aircraft missile? Many companies and jobs depend on that decision. It is to be hoped that the British Aerospace Meteor programme—which is a pan-European missile—will be successful. If we do not get that, we will lose the relevant technology in this country.

Mr. Kilfoyle: It is true to say that all such projects depend on the effectiveness of the product, and on value for money. The competition is fair and open. We must assess each bid as it comes in for the projects under consideration.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I remind the Minister that the paragraph 96 of the strategic defence review identified an "urgent" need to improve our strategic transport. It suggested that the short-term solution was to acquire four McDonnell Douglas C-17 aircraft, or their equivalent. Is not that a grave deficiency that must be rectified at the earliest possible date? Was not the Secretary of State being disingenuous when he said that the short-term strategic transport aircraft requirement continued? I received a letter from Baroness Symons, the Minister for Defence Procurement, saying that the requirement had been terminated. No decision has been reached, but confusion continues.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is confusing two different competitions. We fully intend to procure four aircraft in the short term, by one means or another, but we recognise that there are two separate issues. It may be argued that the long-term contract is even more important than the short-term. Responses have been received from Airbus Industrie, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Each will be considered in due course.

Air Training Corps

Mr. James Plaskitt: If he will make a statement about his Department's measures to support recruitment through Air Training Corps. [96128]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The principal role of the Air Training Corps is as a national youth organisation. Its aims are to foster a spirit of adventure and develop qualities of leadership and good citizenship. It is, however, a valuable source of recruits and, with that in mind, RAF recruiting teams aim to visit every ATC squadron twice a year.

Mr. Plaskitt: The Warwick and Leamington Spa squadron of the ATC, which I had the pleasure of visiting recently, does an excellent education and training job with young people as well as producing many enthusiastic


recruits for our armed forces. However, for more than three years, the squadron has had to operate in temporary and shared accommodation. Will my hon. Friend look into the squadron's accommodation to see whether any assistance might be offered?

Mr. Spellar: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the interest that he has shown in the Warwick and Leamington Spa ATC. I agree that the accommodation is not ideal, although it is adequate. The lease on the building is due for renewal, which may allow a change in location, depending on the availability of suitable and affordable alternatives. I understand that there are hopes that the squadron may collocate with an Army Cadet Force unit in a new building. I shall ask my officials to liaise with my hon. Friend on developments.

Sir Peter Tapsell: As we are discussing service recruitment, may I put it to the Minister that when I did my basic training as a national service private soldier, some of the best chaps in my platoon were former borstal boys? One of them taught me how to get out of handcuffs, one of the few technological skills that I have ever acquired. Many young men get into trouble because they have never been connected with any organisation in which they could take pride. Nor have they ever had proper leadership. Many such chaps—though not, of course, all of them—would make first-class soldiers if they were carefully picked.

Mr. Spellar: Given the hon. Gentleman's illustrious career in the City, I wonder whether those were golden handcuffs.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that positive contribution and for offering a breadth of experience that has been less apparent in some of the other remarks that we have heard on this matter. I thank him, too, for reinforcing the importance of the cadet forces. In many parts of the country they provide scope for leadership and a structured life through involvement in structured organisations. Many youngsters go on to serve in our armed forces, although that is not the sole, or even primary, purpose of the cadet forces. Those youngsters rise well through the forces, and there is an extremely good retention rate among them. The money that we are investing in the cadet forces is good for the services and for the community and the country. The hon. Gentleman's points were well made.

Learning Forces Initiative

Mr. Syd Rapson: If he will make a statement on the progress of the Learning Forces Initiative. [96129]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The learning forces range of measures is giving armed forces personnel enhanced opportunities for self-development, linked to achievement of academic, vocational and professional qualifications. By fostering service people's lifelong learning, the initiative is

preparing them for their eventual return to civilian life. Our learning forces programme forms an important aspect of our policy for people in the armed forces.

Mr. Rapson: Although the initiative is very welcome, will my hon. Friend acknowledge that a substantial number of naval personnel are away at sea for extended periods? There is a need for more information technology and distance-learning facilities. My constituency has a substantial population of Navy personnel. Can the Minister assure me that the learning forces initiative will facilitate their needs?

Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for that question because he highlights the different circumstances that apply to different services. We recognise the special difficulties for lifelong learning imposed on the Navy by the necessity of service at sea. That is why enhanced information technology-based learning facilities are being trialled on HMS Invincible. Depending on that trial's success, we will look for further opportunities for IT-based learning on ships.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister knows that I represent many serving and retired officers. Despite the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell), several of them told me this weekend of their concern that the Government are concentrating in the strategic defence review on what they say are their policies for people, such as the learning forces initiative, to prevent the service people who have been leaving in droves in response to the Government's overstretch policies from leaving the services. It would be better to concentrate on looking after the men and officers already serving than to take desperate measures such as trying to recruit from the criminal classes.

Mr. Spellar: Oh dear! Things have degenerated slightly. The hon. Gentleman is not only wrong about recruitment policy but underestimates the considerable advances that are being made on retention measures, whether through the service task force initiative, the work that we are doing with other Departments to improve the position of service families, the learning forces initiative or the work that we are undertaking so that our service men and women can have qualifications that are recognised externally so as to be portable to their future careers in the civilian world. If he talked not to the retired service men who may be putting that view but to active service men and women about the greater educational opportunities that already exist and the further developments that are taking place, he would have a different perspective.

Armed Forces (Homosexuals)

Mr. Gerald Howarth: What assessment he has made of the effects on armed forces discipline of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on homosexuals in Britain's armed forces. [96130]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): My predecessor made it clear on 27 September this year that we accepted the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases brought by


homosexual former members of the armed forces. We have set in hand an urgent review of policy in this area in the light of the judgment. I shall announce the outcome of that review as soon as possible.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. However, given the deep and profound hostility among service men throughout the country to this ruling, and given that the Government argued vigorously at the European Court of Human Rights that to allow openly homosexual people to join the forces would be deeply damaging to their operational effectiveness, is it now his position that operational effectiveness will not be damaged, or is he prepared to accept that an Albanian, an Austrian and a Lithuanian judge are entitled to usurp the right of this House and our elected Government to determine the composition of the Her Majesty's armed forces?

Mr. Hoon: I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that this Government intend to uphold the law. In the light of the decision by the European Court of Human Rights, it is clear that we need a revised policy that sustains operational effectiveness and is within the law. Discipline is a key element in ensuring that we continue to have operationally effective forces. That is why we will underpin any new policy with a code of conduct that will operate across the three services and cover personal relationships and sexual behaviour generally.

Mr. David Borrow: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the progress that the Government are now making. Does he agree that, as we near the end of the 20th century, homophobic bigotry has no place in Her Majesty's armed forces and that it should not determine the recruitment policies of the military?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I have made it clear that the Government—unlike, apparently, some Opposition Members—are determined to uphold the law, but that we will do so in a way consistent with the operational effectiveness of our armed forces.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: The question relates to the impact of the judgment on the effectiveness of the armed forces. The European Court gave a split decision by seven judges, one of whom was so biased that he would have failed the Hoffman test and none of whom have served in the armed forces, but the Government tell us that they have no opinion as to the impact on the armed forces of the decision. When he was shadow spokesman on defence, the present Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) said:
Let me repeat that we in the Labour party have never given the green light to homosexual activity, conduct or relationships in the armed forces…We fully accept the particular conditions of the armed forces and that homosexual…relationships…can undermine and be prejudicial to good order and morale."—[Official Report, 4 May 1995; Vol. 259, c. 527.]
At that time, the Conservatives supported that view and we support it now. Does the Secretary of State think that

the judgment will have an effect on the efficiency, good morale and good order of the armed forces?

Mr. Hoon: I am still unclear as to the position of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. I have made the Government's position absolutely clear: we will uphold the rule of law, and promote a policy that is consistent both with the rule of law and with operational effectiveness. It is important that Members on the Opposition Front Bench make it clear whether they are equally willing to uphold the law. I have discussed this matter with the Chief of the Defence Staff on several occasions; I am sure that I shall do so again before any final decisions are reached. However, as soon as those decisions are reached, I shall make a statement to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Church Buildings (VAT)

Miss Anne McIntosh: What progress has been made towards reducing VAT on labour—intensive repairs to church buildings; and if he will make a statement. [96158]

Sir Sydney Chapman: What recent representations he has received concerning VAT on church repairs; and if he will make a statement. [96161]

Mr. Stuart Bell(Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I have received a number of representations on the matter, and the commissioners have joined the other central bodies of the Church of England in sending a detailed response to the Government's consultation document, issued by the Treasury in March this year. The Church is concerned that the consultation document repeats the view that European Commission regulations mean that the United Kingdom Government cannot consider introducing new VAT reliefs. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, the Church feels that there may be some scope for extending reduced VAT rates through an extension of items listed by the European Union Commission in annexe H to the sixth directive.

Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he inform the House what progress has been made—especially in regard to my representations in the House and to representations from the other place? I understand that the hon. Gentleman might be minded to support the exemptions to which he referred. What support might we receive from the Paymaster General towards that end?

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support for the campaign. The General Synod, meeting in York during the summer, debated a motion on the scope and rate of VAT as it affects the ministry of the Church. On a vote, the motion was carried without dissent. A similar


view is held by those representing other faiths and secular charities. I hope to make a statement shortly as to how we might proceed with the campaign.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I fully support the hon. Gentleman if he feels able personally to mount a campaign to persuade the Government on this vexed question of VAT on repairs to Church buildings. Does he accept that, in essence, the problem is that, although the Government, with one hand, give certain grants on certain occasions to certain Churches, they take, with both hands, an axe called 17½ per cent. VAT on repairs? In support of his campaign, will he recognise that, in all equity, any relief on VAT for repairs to church buildings should cover all Churches—not only his own—and indeed the buildings of other established religious organisations?

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those questions. I shall be seeking a place in the ballot to obtain an Adjournment Debate on the subject. The many different faith traditions in the UK, which are represented by the Church's main committee, and many other charities should be grouped together in the campaign. I hope that the Church, through the Second Church Estates Commissioner, will be able to give leadership in the campaign and that it will be fruitful.

Mr. David Taylor: May I, uncharacteristically, echo the comments of the hon. Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman)? My hon. Friend's answer will be disappointing to churchwardens in the Akeley South deanery in North-West Leicestershire, who attended a recent meeting led by the Bishop of Leicester at which the topic most often raised was the immense difficulty experienced by thousands of communities in rural areas in raising money to repair their beautiful buildings, most of which are listed, in addition to which…1 of every…7 they raise goes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will my hon. Friend continue his campaign?

Mr. Bell: The campaign is in rather early days for my answer to have been disappointing. Since the beginning of time, Caesar—that is, the state—has received whatever he wants, and we are about to end the millennium rendering unto Caesar VAT that is too heavy and too unreformed.

Jane Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware that the diocese of Oxford is a landowner in an area in my constituency where the economy is booming and land prices are high; and that the diocese has proposed that St. Barnabas church and its associated hall, which lie at the heart of their community in south Reading, should be torn down and bulldozed for profit? Will he give an assurance that such activities on the part of the diocese can be limited?

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me prior notice of her question. I have read the Reading Chronicle so as to be able to answer it. The position of the Church Commissioners is that we have received no proposals from the diocese about that church; at this stage, it is entirely a matter for the Oxford diocese. The

commissioners have a quasi-judicial role, which they might have to exercise in this case, so I am not able to take the matter further on the Floor of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—

Departmental Market Testing

Mr. John Bercow: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the resources available to determine the effectiveness of market testing by Government Departments. [96159]

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The commission has to ensure that the National Audit Office has sufficient resources to carry out its work on a range of issues across all Government Departments and agencies. I am satisfied that that is the case at present, including, where appropriate, examinations of market testing by Government Departments. The NAO has conducted numerous detailed studies of market tests carried out by Government Departments and agencies, including services tested by means of public-private partnerships and the private finance initiative.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Has there been any recent comparative study of the individual performance of different Government Departments in respect of market testing? What criteria have informed that study or evaluation? Is he now satisfied that examples of expensive disservice and slovenliness have been rooted out in favour of good practice and maximum value for money for the British taxpayer?

Mr. Sheldon: The NAO carries out many studies and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is important that they cover the whole range of Government Departments. An essential element of the work is that comparisons are made and presented to the commission, which meets next month to consider those and other matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Genetically Modified Organisms

Mr. Peter L. Pike: When the commissioners expect to make a statement on the proposal to allow experimental growing of genetically modified organisms on the agricultural land for which they are responsible. [96160]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The issue of whether commissioners' land should be leased to allow trials of genetically modified crops to take place is being considered


initially by the Church's ethical investment working group, which develops a co-ordinated ethical investment policy for the Church.

Mr. Pike: Are any GM crops currently being grown on Church-owned land?

Mr. Bell: Currently, no GM crops are being grown on Church land. However, the commissioners have previously stated that, in respect of currently let tenanted farm land, it would be difficult in practice to stop our farmers from growing GM crops, should they want to do so. Like many farmers, ours have freedom of cropping and an attempt by the commissioners to prevent a tenant from growing GM crops might be challenged in the courts.

Wildlife

Mr. Andrew Robathan: What is his policy relating to the conservation of wildlife on Church Commissioners' land. [96162]

Mr. Stuart Bell(Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners have an overall wildlife and conservation plan, which was drawn up by the farming and wildlife advisory group for each of their agricultural estates. The plans are adopted and implemented as appropriate.

Mr. Robathan: I am glad to have that response. However, as the Church Commissioners examine investments ethically, will they move towards ensuring that all farming on Church land is environmentally friendly—that ties in with the previous question—and wildlife friendly? The Church Commissioners could thus—dare I say it—put their money where their mouth is and take a truly ethical stance by preserving the countryside.

Mr. Bell: The Church Commissioners take those matters seriously and consult their managers regularly. In view of their support for wildlife, we take environmentally friendly farming into account, but game shooting and foxhunting are matters for the agricultural and sporting tenants to determine.

Point of Order

Mr. Shaun Woodward: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I informed you earlier today, last Thursday the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), told the House that, on 30 September, he had relinquished his responsibilities as Minister for London and that, on that date, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), became Minister for London and took responsibility for all decisions on London policy, including the Greater London Authority Bill.
The Minister for Housing and Planning also told the House that all responsibility for policy matters relating to the Bill, including amendments tabled since 30 September, rested with that Under-Secretary and that the Minister was present simply in an advisory role. Yet the amendment on impeachment, which we tackled first on Thursday 4 November, was tabled after 30 September and considered in another place on 12 October. The Minister—not the Under-Secretary—dealt with the amendment in the House, 12 days after his resignation as Minister for London. Was it in order for the Minister to do that?
As the Minister continues to speak for the Government, and given the guidelines in the code for Ministers, there is a conflict of interest between his public duties and his private duties as campaign manager for the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). The Minister is in his place and, despite what he told the House last week, he clearly takes the lead role and the

responsibility for guiding the Bill's passage. In the light of the ministerial code on conflicts of interest, has the Minister sought guidance from your office, Madam Speaker, on that conflict of interest? If so, can you give the House your ruling on the matter?

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of that point of order, which he helpfully did at some length. I can deal with it all the more speedily because I have had sight of it for some time and have been able to examine it.
The hon. Gentleman speaks of the application of the ministerial code. It is not for the Speaker to interpret or enforce that code. The hon. Gentleman must find other methods of pursuing the matter.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Even as the House debated the Greater London Authority Bill on Thursday, the Government tabled yet more amendments—including an important amendment, which the Secretary of State tabled, to disagree with the House of Lords. The amendments can only have appeared on the Order Paper on Friday. That hardly gave the House proper time to consider them at all—and certainly not in the context of the timetable motion.
Are you satisfied, Madam Speaker, that the timetable motion can possibly allow the House to consider properly amendments that were only tabled on Thursday and that appeared on the Order Paper on Friday? Can that be right?

Madam Speaker: The timetable motion is perfectly in order. As far as I and many hon. Members are concerned, Friday is a proper, full working day.

Greater London Authority Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I beg to move, Madam Deputy Speaker—sorry, Madam Speaker—

Madam Speaker: Get it right.

Mr. Hill: That is an unforgivable error, which no one could make in normal circumstances. At least I remember one thing: I am Minister for London.
I beg to move,
That the Order of the House of 13th January 1999 relating to the Greater London Authority Bill be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) Proceedings on further Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at ten o'clock.

(2) The remaining Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely:

Nos. 41 to 126, 499, 127 to 212, 703, 213 to 422, 541, 793, 423 to 425, 426 to 498, 500 to 540, 542 to 702, 704 to 792 and 794 to 820.

(3) Each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

TABLE


Lords amendments
Time for conclusion of proceedings


Nos. 41 to 126, 499, 127 to 212, 703, 213 to 422, 541, 793 and 423 to 425
8.00 p.m.


Nos. 426 to 498, 500 to 450, 542 to 702, 704 to 792 and 794 to 820
10.00 p.m.

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) The Speaker shall—

(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment followed by the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(c) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(d) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(3) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages

3. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

5. For the purpose of bringing these proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall—

(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided, and the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message; and
(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

6. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

7.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2), the Chairman shall—

(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided; and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in one of their Amendments.

(4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

8. This paragraph applies to—

(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments;
(b) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords; and
(c) proceedings of the kind mentioned in paragraph 6.

9. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.

10. Proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

11. If proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Urgent matters), commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.

12. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings are taken; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

13. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

14. If a Minister of the Crown makes a Motion for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Motion.

15. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

The Greater London Authority Bill implements our manifesto and White Paper commitment to create a mayor and Assembly for London. It implements policies endorsed overwhelmingly in last year's referendum. It is not, and should not be, a controversial piece of legislation. Indeed, during the Bill's passage through another place, on only one issue was an Opposition amendment carried in a Division.

Like any long and complex Bill, this Bill has been amended. However, that is not without precedent. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House explained last week, the Railways Act 1993, which was a much more contentious measure and a third of the size of the Bill, came back to the House with 470 amendments. That is proportionately twice the number of amendments that the House is now being asked to consider. Moreover, the vast majority of the amendments made to the Bill in another place were technical, many reflecting helpful points raised by Members during consideration in both Houses. Their number reflects the length and complexity of the Bill rather than any last-minute changes in policy.

Two days have been allocated for this stage of consideration of the Bill. The House will recall that the Bill went through its earlier Commons stage on an agreed programme motion. Agreement on timetabling was offered, formally and informally, on this occasion, but the Opposition rejected it. Given the generally non-contentious nature of the amendments before us, it should have been perfectly possible to complete the discussion amicably in two days. It is unfortunate, therefore, that Conservative Members sought to curtail proper debate on Thursday by indulging in time wasting of the crudest kind, thereby making the motion necessary.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hill: No, the right hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity to contribute to the debate.
The Bill is an important part of the Government's programme. We are committed to ensuring that its passage is secured. I commend the revised motion to the House.

Mr. John Redwood: What a pathetic performance from the Minister. He does not even know, Madam Speaker, that you are Madam Speaker, although I am pleased to say that you have been in that post for a long time. He does not know whether he is the Minister for London, or whether the Minister for Housing and Planning still has that job. We know that there is a back-seat driver, and there may even be a front-seat driver sitting next to this junior Minister.
The Government need more guillotines than the French revolution, and for rather less consequence, but this Bill should not be guillotined tonight, because the Government are rewriting it as they go along. I have never seen such a mighty list of amendments tabled so late to a Bill. More

than 800 Government amendments have been tabled, reflecting the acceptance by the Minister in the other place that the Bill is a mess and a farce, and the acceptance by the draftsmen that the job that these Ministers have done is so bad that great chunks of the Bill had to be rewritten after it had been through its Committee stages in both Houses of Parliament. Any decent, self-respecting Government would start again. They would come here to apologise and say that they have made a mighty mess. They would start again with a new Committee stage and a new Bill that had been properly amended and properly thought through, so that we could scrutinise it and do our job.
The Minister may say that we do not need to debate this motion, but he does not like democracy. I have got news for him: people outside the House value their democracy and they think that such major constitutional measures should be properly drafted and properly discussed. They will share my sense of outrage and insult that the Bill is being treated in this way and that the House of Commons has been sidelined and scoffed at by the Minister, who should know much better.

Mr. Nigel Beard: Was it a symptom of the right hon. Gentleman's attachment to democracy that he supported the abolition of the Greater London council, which left London with no democratic authority whatever?

Mr. Redwood: My credentials in favour of democracy are extremely strong. I am a great believer in elected boroughs throughout London that can carry the voice of the people into the council chamber and make the right decisions. What I dislike about this Government is their attitude towards this great Parliament and their refusal to let us have proper debate. They stifle debate and then return with an apology of a Bill which has so many amendments that the House does not have a chance to consider them.
Do not just take my word for how unsatisfactory the legislation is. We have on the record from another place the view of the Minister, Lord Whitty, who has been handling it there. Stating how bad the Bill was, he said:
I am not going to put my hand on my heart and say that everything is absolutely right with this Bill and that we shall not have to legislate within the foreseeable future."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 673.]
Even after 800-odd Government amendments, the Minister accepts that the Bill is still a mess, that the Government may have to come back to the House in the future, and that there may well need to be amendments to the amendments, some of which are no doubt already amendments to amendments, so many stages has this miserable legislation undergone.
There are many things wrong with the Bill that require time for proper debate on the Floor of the House, in the light of the Government's revised views. It is time to bring the public up to date with the shenanigans over transport in London. We know that the Government are about to sign up to a public-private partnership, or at least, we think they are, because we have read it in the press. Some of what the Government tell the press is accurate. In this case, I believe what the Government are telling the press. They probably are close to signing up to a public-private partnership.
What is the point of electing a mayor to high office in London to sort out London's transport system, if the main decisions have already been taken by the Secretary of State behind closed doors, without proper scrutiny, without a proper statement to the House of Commons and without even a proper debate on the issues tonight if time is used up on other momentous points before we reach those crucial clauses?
We are worried about the Government's attitude to parking and congestion. We know that their policy in general is tax and tax again—if it moves, tax it; if does not move, tax it; if it both moves and stays still, tax it on both occasions. We know that that is their policy, and deep in the clauses and amendments there are powers and statements relevant to it. That surely is worthy of a major debate in the Chamber this afternoon and this evening, but we will not have enough time for it because of the Government's mean-minded guillotine motion.

Mr. Phil Hope: The right hon. Gentleman is taking up time.

Mr. Redwood: I am told that I have no right to complain about the allocation of time. I intend to keep my remarks short. The Government cannot be bothered to give us a decent amount of time for the Bill, but I have every right in this place to tell the public of London and the nation how we are being treated, how they are being treated, how measures on big issues such as parking, congestion, traffic and transport are being rushed through, with huge powers in the Bill and huge changes in the amendments, and no opportunity to discuss them properly.
We heard on Thursday, in a debate that was full of substance and was not part of any filibuster—there was no filibuster—that there is no serious power in the Bill to allow the Assembly to control or discipline the mayor. What is the point of the Assembly unless it can engage with what the mayor is doing and, in extreme circumstances, remove the mayor from office? We had no satisfactory answers from Ministers.
We are now told that our wish to discuss that fundamental constitutional principle, with many good contributions from both sides of the Chamber, was part of a filibuster and justifies the Government's action in imposing the guillotine today. They should look at the facts of that debate. If they saw what took place on Thursday, they would know that in a debate of five and three quarter hours, Ministers and Labour Back-Benchers took up two hours, and half an hour was spent in Divisions.
I have seen hon. Members trying to filibuster in the House, particularly when Labour was in opposition. I remember Ministers speaking for three or four minutes, and Opposition Back Benchers speaking for three or four hours. That is the sort of balance that occurs when there is an attempt to talk a Bill out. The debate on Thursday was serious. It was constrained because we were all conscious of the lack of time, and the fact that the time was so evenly balanced across the Chamber shows that Labour Back Benchers and Ministers also recognised that there were serious points at issue, which needed proper discussion.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he identify a single issue raised in that debate that had not previously been debated in Committee and in the other place?

Mr. Redwood: All the issues were new, because they concerned new wording for the Bill proposed by the Government. The Minister cannot say that we were not entitled to scrutinise the detailed recommendations or lack of them because some of the general points had been discussed previously. We had before us a most important amendment that needed to be discussed on the Floor of the House, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman dares to suggest that the House should not have been able to discuss a matter of such fundamental importance. I stress that we were not trying to talk the Bill out; we were trying to talk some sense into it.

Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way because, as is usual these days, he has singularly understated his case in dissecting that of the Government. Does he not agree that it is highly significant that, there are only five Labour Back Benchers present to witness this denial of democracy that the Government intend to perpetrate today? Will it not be interesting to observe whether they are members of the pre-programmed robotic tendency or whether they feel able to deliver themselves of a word of criticism of the Government's outrageous conduct?

Mr. Redwood: I agree with my hon. Friend's thrust. I hope that some Labour Back Benchers will realise that the Bill's drafting contains serious defects and bring that to the attention of the House.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Has it occurred to my right hon. Friend that we did not range even wider last Thursday because a number of us sat on our hands and kept our mouths shut in order to make progress?

Mr. Redwood: That is quite right. I had to sit on my hands and keep quiet when I felt like intervening because I knew that time was so limited.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I spoke for only six minutes during that debate, but the Whip sat on me because even that was judged too long. Was my speech a filibuster? Is not there something wrong with our procedures when we spent the whole of last Monday discussing whether we should print Acts of Parliament on vellum, and finished early, but are spending just two days discussing 800 amendments?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. We finished early last Monday and the House has had the longest holidays in living memory, but the Government dare to introduce such momentous legislation on a rushed timetable.
The Labour mayoral candidates are so embarrassed by the Bill that they have not attended this crucial debate. On Thursday, only one candidate was present for part of the time—the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras


(Mr. Dobson) turned up—but we wonder why the others do not attend, do not vote and do not take an interest. We also wonder why the Minister for Housing and Planning does all the talking, and his right hon. Friend does none, when he is only the campaign manager—an odd role to combine with that of the Minister making such important decisions. [Interruption.]

Mr. Shaun Woodward: The Minister says that this is boring.

Mr. Redwood: Now the Minister dares to tell us that this is all boring when we are dealing with the substance of the argument about democracy in London—his Bill, who should be mayor and under what conditions the mayor should be appointed. One can only conclude that Greenwich fiddles while Holborn and St. Pancras burns. We see him looking all too shaken, because we know that he is guilty: as a Minister making decisions on matters so close to his political interests, he ought properly to resign from his role in respect of the Bill and disappear. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should appear, declare his legitimate interest and make a contribution to the proceedings.
I am conscious that there is not sufficient time to discuss the motion and that we want to debate many weighty issues properly this evening. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends want to contribute, and I suspect that some Labour and Liberal Members want to do so as well, so I urge the House to reject the guillotine motion. As I fear that it will not, I shall conclude my remarks.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I reiterate the point made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about the complexity of the Bill. We have received 820 amendments from the other place and although a large number of them are technical, they have important consequences for how the Bill will be implemented. I should point out that the other place took one decision by amending the Bill—the Minister was good enough to refer to it—that relates to the capacity of the Assembly to recall the mayor. I take exception to the suggestion that Thursday's debate in the House on the one change imposed by the other place was a filibuster. We had to give that matter serious consideration. The debate was not a mistake; it was our constitutional duty to have it. Serious issues are at stake and it is entirely proper for the House to give time and thought to them.
When I asked the Leader of the House about the guillotine at business questions last week, part of the excuse given for it was that others had tabled guillotine motions in the past and that previous Bills had been subject to large numbers of amendments. Again today, the Minister has said that we should reconsider the Railways Act 1993, to which 470 amendments were tabled—four times as many pro rata as to this Bill. Those observations are a criticism of the size and complexity of the Bill in its original form; it does not excuse the fact that we have more than 800 amendments to consider in two days, which is simply unachievable.
May I draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to the table in the motion, where reference is made to clauses that will be considered at 10 pm? The motion refers to amendments Nos. 426 to 498 and then to Nos. 500 to 450. We shall no doubt—

Madam Speaker: Order. May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? It is a misprint. The motion should refer to amendments Nos. 500 to 540. It was wise of the hon. Gentleman to bring the mistake to my attention and that of the House.

Mr. Stunell: That, Madam Speaker, proves that the Bill is so complicated and complex that, even when the Government list the clauses to be timetabled, it is difficult to get the information correct. That mistake encapsulates the difficulties that the motion poses for the House, and reveals the Government's arrogance in pushing it forward.
Some key issues in the Bill will now probably not be considered properly. Those include the public-private partnership arrangements, which amount to the privatisation of a major nationalised industry—the London tube. The Bill proposes a major change in the financing of one of the capital's most important institutions, and the relevant amendment appears on the Order Paper for decision this evening. However, the relevant debates will almost certainly be too truncated to allow serious discussion of the proposals' merits. That service has a tremendous impact on the capital and it is a vital issue in the forthcoming mayoral campaign. It will, however, be completely side-stepped as a result of the motion.
Other issues are also at stake. Road user charging, a new principle for the country, is to be piloted under this legislation, but it will not be subject to proper scrutiny in the House. Consultation with disabled groups will also be skated around.
The only decision with which the House of Lords disagreed, mayoral recall—and it did so by a majority of two to one, which was not a marginal disagreement or even one to which those who have subsequently lost their places there contributed—is now being held up as the reason why we have to have a guillotine motion preventing us from discussing such vital matters.
The Liberal Democrats oppose the timetable motion. We believe that it is a recipe for making complex legislation worse and that it undermines attempts made in this House and elsewhere to improve the legislative process so that, in future, we can produce legislation of which we are proud, rather than that which we have to excuse. We also believe that the motion makes the prospect of a Greater London Authority that is able to exercise its powers in a straightforward way more difficult to achieve.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Normally, we would have welcomed the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport arid the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill). He is new to the job, and we would have thought that he would be keen to impress, and to make a bit of a name for himself in London. His performance was perfunctory in the extreme, however. Long may he remain in his present role: on the basis of today's performance, he will lose a lot of votes for Labour.
The Labour party's action in guillotining the debate demonstrates a supreme contempt for democracy which would have done justice to the Socialist Unity party in the German Democratic Republic that came to an end 10 years ago. Londoners and others will not ignore the fact—we certainly have not ignored it—that Thursday's debate was rightly taken up mostly by what people regard as the very essence of democracy, namely accountability: the ability to bring to account those who exercise executive responsibility by virtue of their democratic election to the mayoralty. None of us, I am sure, felt that we had spoken for too long in any sense, although we may have felt that the Minister for Housing and Planning—who was being his usual charming, affable self—did speak for a little too long. In fact, we thought that he spoke for much too long.
The truth is that the Minister should not have spoken at all. He continues to take the Queen's shilling, but spends most of his time as campaign manager for the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Most people in London would not regard that as an appropriate use of taxpayers' money; they believe that Ministers of the Crown are paid to do their job full time. We have learned that the Minister's job, from September, is not to be Minister for London, and we therefore wonder why he is here—except, of course, to help out the Under-Secretary, who is so new to these matters that he cannot advance an argument in favour of the guillotine for more than two minutes.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, quite apart from the interests of value for money for the taxpayer and the propriety of the Minister fulfilling the responsibilities for which he is paid rather than those for which he is not, it would be very much in the interests of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) if the Minister spent less time on his campaign and more time in the House?

Mr. Wilkinson: I leave that to the judgment of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who before too long will himself be judged by that egregious college which is the Labour party's selectorate. If he pleases that egregious college, he will go on to be judged by the much more discriminating electoral college composed of the people of London. It will be a matter for those twin judgments.
The Government had plenty of time. We could have continued much later than 7 pm on Thursday. The Government like a cosy life: they do not wish the myriad amendments that they have incorporated in the Bill to be properly discussed. Discussing and considering amendments, however, is an important function. We cannot simply incorporate provisions in legislation. One point was agreed by Members on both sides of the House at the outset: the devil is in the detail. We have had no time to discuss that devilish detail, and much do we bewail the fact. Similarly, we could have continued until much later than 10 o'clock tonight if the business managers had organised the debate properly.
As was made clear by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), exceedingly important issues are involved. Let me refer to another aspect of the

public-private partnership. The electors of London, and the people of this country, will wonder why so little time has been allotted for us to discuss provisions relating to the PPP for the tube, when more than half a billion pounds of taxpayers' money must be spent on remedying the deficiencies of this policy which is still not in place.
Then there is the question of amendment No. 555, and the power to appoint staff. The Government love appointing people. Labour is, par excellence, the patronage party. In the intermediate period between the election and the mayor's assumption of responsibilities in July next year, the Secretary of State will be able to pack the Greater London Authority with his cronies. That is not democratic and it deserves considerable discussion tonight.
Last but not least, there is the issue of road user charges. I gather that they are to be based on distance travelled as well as the use of a vehicle to get to work. My constituents, who have to travel long distances to get to work because the public transport system is still inadequate, will not be delighted by that. Nor will they be enthused by Labour's attempts to diminish the reasonable opportunities afforded to Back Benchers and others to debate the issue.
All in all, the Government's performance is shameful, disreputable and shoddy. No wonder the Under-Secretary spoke for such a short time. Had he spoken any longer he would have brought the measure into even more disrepute.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Proceedings on the Bill before it went to the Lords were a model for the lack of rancour with which they were conducted. There were occasional moments, but there are in any Committee. The Minister for Housing and Planning earned the praise of the Committee at the end of the proceedings for the manner in which he had conducted them. I am very sorry that the Government have tabled a guillotine motion, because it has introduced some rancour to the House's deliberations on a Bill which everyone agrees is important.
I admire the Leader of the House. I am glad that she survived the July and October reshuffles, because she is a good Leader of the House. I am not criticising her, but there was a time when the holder of her post attended and moved the motion in debates on guillotines. The right hon. Lady's one failing is that she has some of the characteristics of the speaking clock when she reads out that there is going to be a guillotine motion. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) drew attention to the fact that her two references to the first debate taking four hours were inaccurate by 53 minutes, because it took three hours and seven minutes, although I acknowledge that it was followed by a Division. Not having Divisions is very new Labour. It may be a reflection of the evils of Conservatism that we retain an old-fashioned democratic affection for an occasional vote, so I do not feel bad about the fact that we divided at the end of the first debate. Even so, the right hon. Lady greatly exaggerated the length of time that it took.
When the Bill came to us in Committee it had 270 clauses and 30 schedules. We added a further 30 clauses in Committee. It then went off to the House of Lords. My understanding is that after the to-ing and fro-ing with the


House of Lords is concluded, the Bill will have 413 clauses. That means that the Bill will have more than a third as many clauses as it had when it left this House and will have increased in size by more than 50 per cent. since it first went to the Standing Committee all those days ago in January. That is a massive increase, reinforcing what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said.
I shall not follow others—started by the Minister for Housing and Planning—in referring to candidates. Several Labour Members are, in one of Mr. Neil Kinnock's famous phrases, fighting like ferrets in a sack. In these days of political correctness, I should not want to say anything that was in any way disobliging to ferrets.
The Bill is too important to be hurried. I started by paying my respects to the Minister for Housing and Planning for the manner in which he initially conducted proceedings on the Bill. I can only express my regret that his thumbprint is on the guillotine that we are debating now.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I wish to join my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) in what he said, which bears upon the way in which we conduct debates.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have made cogent and powerful points, as did the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)—not the least of which is that there is a misprint in the motion. I do not know whether the Government will address that before we commence. If not, the misprint will stand as the order of this House if we go to a vote and the motion is approved. Will the Government move an amendment in advance of the decision on the motion? As it stands, the motion refers to amendments Nos. "500 to 450", which could cause confusion in terms of the intervening amendments.
I have had a long struggle against the use of guillotines, which have become routine for Governments. The present Government in particular are not weighing sufficiently carefully what they are doing. For many years—back to the 1930s—the House has been concerned about Henry VIII clauses in Bills. Now we have a Government who, like Henry VIII, believe that any proclamation of the King should be law.
Effectively, this motion is a proclamation. Within the first set of amendments to be considered, Nos. 213 to 422 deal with measures relating to London Transport. Effectively, these make up an additional Bill. Under any other Government, these measures would have made a separate, free-standing Bill. We know that that is the Government's own view; they would not have constructed a Bill which omitted such a fundamental principle if they held that the measures should be part of the original Bill.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that, taking what he has just said together with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) about the proportion of the Bill considered in relative detail in Committee and the enormous number of amendments to be added with no consideration at all, this could set a dangerous precedent that could be used by a Government who might be tempted to put an entirely new Bill into one that had

received detailed consideration and to push it through under a guillotine with no consideration at all? [Interruption.] Does that worry my hon. Friend?

Mr. Shepherd: And how! Clearly, this matter concerned the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who said that it was the constitutional duty of this House to debate. I do not demur from that. Any understanding of the role of Executive Government and the function of the House of Commons comes down to the fundamental basic job of the House of Commons, which is to debate the public measures and policies put forward by the Executive. In this case, the Executive have decided to create what could be a free-standing Bill in its own right, insert it into the original Bill in the House of Lords and present it to this Chamber. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary may or may not agree, and I am happy that he is participating—like Back-Bench Members—in this debate. Could he give us a greater insight into the use of the guillotine?
I am becoming alarmed by the way in which the Government believe that their proclamations are law, and by their disregard for the purposes and processes of this House. I have seen Governments of a different colour nodding their head at that idea. The guillotine is constructed so closely—apart from the misprint, which I accept—that the motion states that the House
doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
We know full well that we shall not be able to debate all the amendments, simply because of the scarcity of time allocated to do so by a majority of Labour Members. However, the guillotine is being used as a device to prevent us even from voting against provisions that we may judge to be inappropriate or wrong or as giving a wrong balance to the legislation. Is that a development in the employment of guillotine motions?
The Government will eventually stand in front of the public at a general election, but it takes a long time for it to become widely known that important issues of substance are no longer at the core of Members' role in addressing—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster does—vital London constituency issues. Because of the nature of some of the amendments, I, too, now have vital constituency issues to address in the Bill. The issue of road user charges is an important one in principle for people living in Aldridge—Brownhills or anywhere else in the west midlands. Nevertheless, the provision has simply been driven into the Bill, with no opportunity properly to discuss it.

Mr. Bercow: I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard the Minister for Housing and Planning sedentarily comment that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was paranoid. In the light of that sedentary interjection, does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister now has a duty to tell us whether hon. Members' treatment today is intended to be an isolated case and will not be repeated, or whether it is now to become common practice, and, if so, whether he has the audacity to think that none of us should be remotely concerned about it?

Mr. Shepherd: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. He used the word paranoid. We often in our debates make allegations, become excited and make claims about other


hon. Members that do not always bear scrutiny—and without scrutiny, we shall not able to appreciate the folly of expressions that we sometimes use.
Much more important than characterising each of us as trying to represent our narrow constituency interests, however, is whether we are truly able to discuss the substance of matters that will have a bearing on our constituents.
I know—because of the good grace of my colleagues, the "Today" programme and other sources—that the Minister for Housing and Planning is running the campaign of a candidate in the London mayoral election. We know that the hon. Gentleman's sympathies are not so disdainful of the House—surely he must know that, in normal times, the Government's proposed use of this guillotine, and the huge transformations effected in the Bill, would be thought most inappropriate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman—who is always assiduous in dealing with respect for the rights of the House—has considered one supplementary point. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) commented that the House is expected to consider, in two days, about 90 new clauses and about 10 schedules—some of which are pages long, and some of which, in both their general and detailed provision, have huge financial implications. I have never known the House to be expected to consider 90 new clauses and 10 schedules at this stage in a Bill's passage, and I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has, either.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. The issue is also profoundly important to him and his constituents. We know how assiduously he—like many hon. Members—works on behalf of his constituents, and that every hon. Member who has spoken in this debate has a regard for that duty. That was why I started my remarks by mentioning—I know that Ministers will think it was intemperate—Henry VIII provisions and the concept of governing the United Kingdom by statutory instruments which generally are not seriously scrutinised by the House, as there is no opportunity to debate them. Long years ago, the practice was said to be inappropriate, and it was said that it would be excluded from the practices of the House.
In truth, we understand that, in great Bills and in great Departments of State, there is a need to tailor measures to the needs of the day. However, in the current case, we are creating entirely new legislation without allowing the House even to consider it.

Mr. Redwood: I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees with other Opposition Members that it is particularly worrying that the Bill should be guillotined and the debate curtailed when the Government are so unable to get things right—when there are so many changes; when the Order Paper is incorrect; when Ministers gave the wrong figure for the length of previous debate; and when their only argument against me is that I voted to abolish the Greater London council—although I never voted to do so, if for no other reason than I was not even an hon. Member at the time?

Mr. Shepherd: My right hon. Friend well justifies the Front-Bench position that he holds.
In summary, there is no point. We know that in truth, this is part of a bigger play. The Government are coming to the end of a parliamentary Session—but that is not the Opposition's fault; that aspect of the timetable was not unknown. The Government have been aware for most of the year that at some time in November the Queen will open a new Session of Parliament. The rejigging of business, with the leitmotif that a Weatherill amendment may or may not be included in another piece of legislation, condenses an enormously important Bill.
As it happens, I never believed in the Greater London Authority Bill. The referendum demonstrated that there was not what one could call consent or agreement to it. For the Government to present us with such a guillotine, and with the extraordinary contention that we may not even vote, other than once, on the whole of what comes under the proposition
That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments
is truly an execution.

Mr. Forth: My I bring some solace to my hon. Friend? My understanding is that we have the possibility of a reassuringly large number of Divisions, of which my hon. Friend and others may wish to avail themselves, within the first grouping of amendments, which we must finish by 8 o'clock. Notwithstanding the fact that the time for debate is inadequate, my hon. Friend can be reassured that he may be able to express his view in the Division Lobby on a surprisingly large number of occasions.

Mr. Shepherd: But those may not be the occasions of my choice.
I will scrutinise what my right hon. Friend says and support him in his endeavour, but if he is correct, that means that we may be unable to discuss any of the amendments scheduled for debate after 8 o'clock, if we are voting on the other amendments—[Interruption.] The Minister for Housing and Planning pointing in the general direction of another part of the House does not constitute an argument. That is not what debate in the Chamber is about.
I am outraged, as many other people will be if they understand what is happening. Amendments Nos. 426 to 498, 500 to—as is still written on the Order Paper—450, 542 to 702, 704 to 792, and 794 to 820, may be excluded from debate because hon. Members are doing the appropriate business of the House, which is voting on matters that the Government suggest should be public policy, in some instances with the force of law.
That is wrong, and the Government should know it. They should know that, slowly, their intolerance concerning parliamentary procedures and processes—that means debate by elected representatives—will bring them into disrepute.

Mr. Edward Leigh: There is something rather predictable about such debates, and I suppose that that explains the smile on the Minister's face. Governments govern and Oppositions talk, and if Oppositions were allowed to go on talking they would talk for ever. That is why, for the past 100 years, Governments have always preserved the right to guillotine in the end.
However, we are deluding ourselves if we believe that we are living in the same sort of Parliament as existed in earlier times. The political set-up then was largely amateur, there was little legislation, and most Members of Parliament were experts in their field. When it was necessary to guillotine legislation, it was usually on matters that—

It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the supplemental allocation of time motion, MADAM SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [13 January.]

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 150.

Division No. 295]
[4.19 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Cohen, Harry


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coleman, Iain


Alexander, Douglas
Connarty, Michael


Allen, Graham
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cooper, Yvette


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Corbett, Robin


Ashton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Atherton, Ms Candy
Corston, Jean


Atkins, Charlotte
Cousins, Jim


Austin, John
Cox, Tom


Barnes, Harry
Cranston, Ross


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bayley, Hugh
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Beard, Nigel
Cummings, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bennett, Andrew F
Darvill, Keith


Berry, Roger
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Betts, Clive
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blizzard, Bob
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dean, Mrs Janet


Borrow, David
Denham, John


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dobbin, Jim


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Donohoe, Brian H


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Doran, Frank


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dowd, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Drew, David


Browne, Desmond
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burgon, Colin
Edwards, Huw


Butler, Mrs Christine
Efford, Clive


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Caplin, Ivor
Flint, Caroline


Casale, Roger
Flynn, Paul


Caton, Martin
Follett, Barbara


Chaytor, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)



Foulkes, George


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Fyfe, Maria


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gapes, Mike


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gardiner, Barry


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gerrard, Neil


Clelland, David
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clwyd, Ann
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Coaker, Vernon
Godman, Dr Norman A


Coffey, Ms Ann
Godsiff, Roger





Goggins, Paul
McIsaac, Shona


Golding, Mrs Llin
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McNamara, Kevin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grocott, Bruce
McWilliam, John


Grogan, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gunnell, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hain, Peter
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hanson, David
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Martlew, Eric


Healey, John
Maxton, John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Meale, Alan


Hepburn, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Heppell, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hesford, Stephen
Miller, Andrew


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Moffatt, Laura


Hill, Keith
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hood, Jimmy
Mountford, Kali


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mudie, George


Hope, Phil
Mullin, Chris


Hopkins, Kelvin
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hoyle, Lindsay
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Olner, Bill


Humble, Mrs Joan
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hurst, Alan
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hutton, John
Palmer, Dr Nick


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pearson, Ian


Illsley, Eric
Perham, Ms Linda


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pickthall, Colin


Jamieson, David
Pike, Peter L


Jenkins, Brian
Plaskitt, James


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pond, Chris



Pound, Stephen


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rammell, Bill


Keeble, Ms Sally
Rapson, Syd


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Raynsford, Nick


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kemp, Fraser
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Khabra, Piara S
Rogers, Allan


Kidney, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Roy, Frank


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ruane, Chris


Kingham, Ms Tess
Ruddock, Joan


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Salter, Martin


Laxton, Bob
Sarwar, Mohammad


Leslie, Christopher
Sawford, Phil


Levitt, Tom
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Linton, Martin
Sheerman, Barry


Livingstone, Ken
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Love, Andrew
Singh, Marsha


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Angela (Basilclon)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McDonnell, John
Southworth, Ms Helen


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Spellar, John






Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Steinberg, Gerry
Tynan, Bill


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wareing, Robert N


Stinchcombe, Paul
Watts, David


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
White, Brian


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stringer, Graham
Wicks, Malcolm


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sutcliffe, Gerry



Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Winnick, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wise, Audrey


Timms, Stephen
Wood, Mike


Todd, Mark
Worthington, Tony


Touhig, Don
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Truswell, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Mr. Mike Hall and


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Mr. Greg Pope.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gale, Roger


Allan, Richard
Garnier, Edward


Amess, David
Gibb, Nick


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Gill, Christopher


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gray, James


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Green, Damian


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Greenway, John


Baldry, Tony
Grieve, Dominic


Ballard, Jackie
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bercow, John
Hammond, Philip


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hancock, Mike


Blunt, Crispin
Hawkins, Nick


Boswell, Tim
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Brady, Graham
Horam, John


Brake, Tom
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Brazier, Julian
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Breed, Colin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Jenkin, Bernard


Burns, Simon
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Butterfill, John
Keetch, Paul


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Key, Robert



Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Chope, Christopher
Kirkwood, Archy


Clappison, James
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lansley, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward


Collins, Tim
Letwin, Oliver


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cotter, Brian
Lidington, David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter


Duncan, Alan
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Duncan Smith, Iain
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, Nigel
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Fabricant, Michael
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Fallon, Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Flight Howard
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Madel, Sir David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Malins, Humfrey


Fox, Dr Liam
Maples, John


Fraser, Christopher
Mates, Michael





Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Streeter, Gary


May, Mrs Theresa
Swayne, Desmond


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Syms, Robert


Moss, Malcolm
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Page, Richard
Trend, Michael


Paterson, Owen
Tyrie, Andrew


Pickles, Eric
Waterson, Nigel


Prior, David
Webb, Steve


Randall, John
Wells, Bowen


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Rendel, David
Whittingdale, John


Robathan, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Robertson, Laurence
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wilkinson, John


Ruffley, David
Willetts, David


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wilshire, David


Sanders, Adrian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Woodward, Shaun


Shepherd, Richard
Yeo.Tim


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Soames, Nicholas



Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Sir Michael
Mrs. Jacqui Lait and


Spring, Richard
Mr. James Cran.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Order of the House of 13th January 1999 relating to the Greater London Authority Bill be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) Proceedings on further Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at ten o'clock.

(2) The remaining Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely:

Nos. 41 to 126, 499, 127 to 212, 703, 213 to 422, 541, 793, 423 to 425, 426 to 498, 500 to 540, 542 to 702, 704 to 792 and 794 to 820.

(3) Each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

TABLE


Lords amendments
Time for conclusion of proceedings


Nos. 41 to 126, 499, 127 to 212, 703, 213 to 422, 541, 793 and 423 to 425
8.00 p.m.


Nos. 426 to 498, 500 to 450, 542 to 702, 704 to 792 and 794 to 820
10.00 p.m.

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) The Speaker shall—

(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, a single Question on any further Amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment followed by the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;


(c) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(d) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(3) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages

3. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

5. For the purpose of bringing these proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall—

(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided, and the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message; and
(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

6. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

7.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2), the Chairman shall—


(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided; and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in one of their Amendments.

(4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

Miscellaneous

8. This paragraph applies to—

(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments;
(b) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords; and
(c) proceedings of the kind mentioned in paragraph 6.

9. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.

10. Proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

11. If proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Urgent matters), commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.

12. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings are taken; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

13. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

14. If a Minister of the Crown makes a Motion for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Motion.

15. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day — Greater London Authority Bill

Lords amendments further considered.

Clause 37

THE MAYOR'S MONTHLY REPORT TO THE ASSEMBLY

Lords amendment: No. 41, in page 22, line 2, after ("three") insert ("clear working")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 42 to 44, 46, 49 to 53, 58 to 80, 83, 86, 92 to 94, 97 to 102, 116, 117, 576, 581, 636 to 639, 642, 643 and 645.

Mr. Hill: This group of amendments makes provision for various matters connected with meetings and the procedures for them. On the first four issues that they cover, the amendments are direct responses to concerns raised during the passage of the Bill, and in particular to views expressed in the other place.
Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 46 extend from three days to three clear working days the interval between the mayor submitting a report to the Assembly and the meeting at which the report is considered.
Amendments Nos. 43, 44, 61, 83, 116 and 117 make provision for written questions so that the mayor and Greater London Authority staff who may be questioned at Assembly meetings can provide answers in writing when oral answers are not practicable. The amendments also ensure that the text of questions and answers will be open to public inspection in the same way as the minutes of the meeting.
Amendments Nos. 49 to 53 remove the requirements to use the names "state of London debate" and "People's Question Time" while leaving both as defined terms in the Bill. They also place duties on the mayor to decide the form and procedure for both events, following consultation with the Assembly.
Lords amendments Nos. 60 to 64 replace the requirement for the Assembly to hold monthly meetings with one to hold 10 meetings a year. Those meetings must be no less than 28 days apart and may cover matters in addition to the mayor's report. They also clarify that the Assembly may hold any additional meetings that it chooses.
Lords amendments Nos. 69 and 78 make express provision for minutes of Assembly meetings. Lords amendments Nos. 65, 67 and 68, 86, 93, 636 to 639, 642, 643 and 645 provide for the Assembly to take decisions by a simple majority of those present and voting at a meeting, except where there is express provision to the contrary.
Lords amendments Nos. 70 to 76 make detailed provision for the Assembly to delegate the discharge of its functions to sub-committees and, in certain circumstances, to members of the Authority's staff.
Finally, Lords amendments Nos. 77, 79, 80, 92, 94, 97, 98 to 102, 576 and 581 expressly provide for the establishment of committees and sub-committees of the Assembly to which the Assembly may delegate its functions under clause 46(1)(a), and for the establishment of advisory committees.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We may have views on many groups of amendments, but for the reasons that Opposition Members made clear in the previous debate, we will not comment on many because we would not then be able to contribute to debates on, for example, London transport. The absence of such comments is not to be taken as a lack of interest or a lack of suggestions as to how things might have been done better.

Sir Sydney Chapman: My point is generic, but it is right to raise it now. The Minister talked about the "state of London debate" and the "mayor of London". I think that it should be called the "state of Greater London debate" because that means a lot to my constituents in what used to be called outer London.

Mr. Hill: As a result of provisions now in the Bill, the Assembly will be able to do exactly that and widen the title of the debate to "Greater London" if it so desires.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I think that the Minister misunderstood my point, which concerned not what the Assembly can discuss, but the title "state of London" or "mayor of London".

Mr. Hill: I am sorry if I did not make the position clear. The Assembly can change the description of the debate to "state of Greater London" if it wishes.

Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 42 to 44 agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 45, in page 22, line 23, at end insert—

("(b) a functional body,
(c) a member of a functional body, or
(d) a member of staff of a functional body,

except as provided by subsection (4A) below.

(4A) Where—

(a) the Mayor receives advice from a person falling within paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (4) above, and
(b) the functional body mentioned in that paragraph is the Metropolitan Police Authority or the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,

the Mayor is not relieved by subsection (4) above from any requirement to disclose the advice, if or to the extent that the advice falls within subsection (4B) below.

(4B) Advice given to the Mayor by a functional body falls within this subsection if it has been disclosed—

(a) at a meeting of, or of a committee or sub-committee of, the functional body at a time when the meeting was open to members of the public by virtue of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents); or
(b) in a document which has been open to inspection by members of the public by virtue of that Part of that Act.

(4C) Any reference in this section to a member of staff of a functional body includes a reference to an officer or employee of that body.")

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 81, 82, 84, 85, 87 to 91 and 96.

Mr. Raynsford: This group of amendments covers the openness arrangements for the Authority and clarifies the Assembly's power to summons. It completes the provisions for privacy of advice to the mayor, extending them to advice from functional bodies and ensuring that such advice is not disclosed as a background paper for an Assembly meeting. It makes it clear that the openness arrangements in clause 48 apply to Assembly committees and sub-committees. It places a duty on the Assembly not to disclose certain types of commercial information relating to Transport for London and the London development agency. It makes express provision for the Assembly to summon former chairmen and members of functional bodies, and makes it clear that the clause 48 openness arrangements, with appropriate modifications, apply to the power to summons hearings.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have a simple question for the Minister. Can he say whether, when this Bill becomes law, the facts contained in advice to Ministers will be available to the public? It is a straightforward freedom of information question. I understand the point about advice on what the mayor and Assembly should do, but will the facts compiled in preparing such advice be available to the public?

Mr. Brooke: The subject of advice is contained in amendment No. 45. As the Minister will recall, the issue of confidential advice to the mayor was included in neither the Green Paper nor the White Paper, although I acknowledge that it was included in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, on 4 February, in a paving suggestion on what was then clause 37, I raised the subject in anticipation of clauses 51, 56 and 59 of the Bill as it was then.
On 9 February, I raised the question, substantively, of confidential advice from the 10 members of the cabinet and the two special advisers. In the Minister's reply, he widely extended the range of those whose advice would remain confidential. I said:
I am extremely grateful to the Minister. However, I am simply asking—I am quite certain that he will satisfy me with a single sentence—what legislative cover there is for those other than the 12, to whom he has just referred?
Although Hansard does not relate that he did so after receiving a paper from his officials, the Minister replied:
The answer is that we shall be tabling amendments to clarify that issue.
He was then kind enough to note:
The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, which we shall ensure is covered by amendments tabled later in our proceedings."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 February 1999; c. 340.]

Subsequently and privately, the Minister revealed to me how the matter had occurred; I shall not embarrass anyone by divulging what it was. However, I did look forward to seeing the amendments. They did not arrive on Report in this place, nor in Committee in the Lords. Eventually, they arrived, on 14 October, on Report in the Lords—more than eight months after the Minister's commitment that the Government would table them. They were then withdrawn by Lord Whitty on Report, and were finally introduced into the Bill at the very last possible moment, on Third Reading in the Lords on 1 November, after almost nine months' gestation.
Given the unhappiness of many people in local government about the provisions, the Government's handling of the matter does not inspire confidence. It will serve as the most vivid of indices that the Government made the Bill up as they went along.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised two issues. First, the objective that we tried to achieve through the amendments—and which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is satisfied has been achieved in them—is to distinguish between advice to the mayor and background information that should be properly and readily available. That is also one explanation in regard to the question put by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who, in the nicest possible way, complains about the length of time taken to give effect to the commitments that I gave in Committee.
It is a difficult task to ensure that there is a proper distinction between advice and background information. We did not want unduly to fetter access to information through giving too broad a definition of advice. In response to points made by noble Friends of the right hon. Gentleman in another place, it is precisely for that reason that we have introduced the latest set of amendments. We want to try to ensure that the privacy of advice to the mayor is respected, while there is the greatest possible access to information and background papers.

Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to the Minister for his answer. He may plead that the drafting powers of the Department were so entirely occupied that it took eight months for the matter to come up on Report in the Lords. However, if matters come up earlier. Members of this and the other place have the opportunity to improve legislation in the way that the Minister has just described. If the amendments are not tabled, such an opportunity does not exist.

Mr. Raynsford: I accept the principle of the right hon. Gentleman's comments; I hope that he will accept that that was achieved in practice. We have reached our objective of ensuring that the provisions of secrecy apply—contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said, those provisions were covered in the White Paper. We pointed out that the advice to the mayor would be covered by the provisions of the Whitehall code, rather than the local government code. We are concerned to give effect to those provisions while ensuring that there is the maximum openness on all background information.

Mr. Brooke: If the Minister reads the exchanges in Committee, he will see that he explained why these matters were not discussed in the Green Paper and the White Paper, but emerged only when the Bill was published.

Mr. Raynsford: I do not want to get into a lengthy debate with the right hon. Gentleman about matters covered in Committee. I accept that the matters we are discussing were not covered in the Green Paper and, no doubt, that is the issue we debated several months ago. However, the Government are committed to the Whitehall model, in which the privacy of advice to the mayor is guaranteed, but which is also an openness model in which there is maximum access to background information. That is what the amendments would achieve. It has been difficult to arrive at the right definition, but we are satisfied that we have done so, having listened to the views expressed in Standing Committee and in another place.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 46 to 94 agreed to.

Clause 52

PROCEDURE FOR REQUIRING ATTENDANCE

Lords amendment: No. 95, in page 29, line 14, leave out ("Chief Administrative Officer of the Authority") and insert
("head of the Authority's paid service")

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 103 to 114, 118 to 123 and 158.

Mr. Raynsford: The amendments appear complex, but I am pleased to be able to reassure the House that their appearance is deceptive. Amendment No. 95 simply anticipates an amendment to clause 61, which removes the requirement to call the head of paid service the chief administrative officer.
Amendments Nos. 121 and 123 would clarify the respective roles of the mayor and the Assembly in the provision of resources for the head of paid service and the monitoring officer. The amendments would provide for the mayor to provide accommodation and other resources for the two officers, and for the Assembly to provide their staff.
Amendments Nos. 118, 122 and 158 provide for the head of paid service, the monitoring officer and the chief finance officer to be appointed as members of staff under the provisions of clause 56(2) of the Bill. That prevents those offices being held by staff appointed by the mayor. The procedures for handling reports submitted to the Authority by either the head of paid service or the monitoring officer are also provided for in the amendments.
The provision in the Bill requiring the head of paid service should be known as the chief administrative officer has been criticised as being unduly prescriptive. We agree, so the requirement would be deleted by amendment No. 120.
Amendments Nos. 103 to 105 are drafting amendments that would reinforce the need for the Assembly to consult the mayor about the appointments of GLA staff which he or she has made, prior to making its own appointments.
Amendment No. 106 disapplies the provisions of section 9 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which would impose restrictions on the remuneration that could be paid to the mayor's political advisers. Amendment No. 107 is a consequential amendment.
Amendment No. 108 adds the London development agency to the list of bodies which are to be treated as a local authority for the purposes of the politically restricted posts provisions of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Amendment No. 109 deletes references to the Metropolitan police authority and the London fire and emergency planning authority, because they are already covered by the 1989 Act.
Amendments Nos. 110 to 112 are drafting amendments, designed to make it clear that, when the mayor appoints one of his or her staff to the board of either the London development agency or Transport for London, it will be on an unpaid basis.
Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 apply the provisions of Section 2 of the 1989 Act to the chief finance officer of Transport for London and the chief executive of the London development agency.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 96 to 123 agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 124, after clause 65, to insert the following new clause—Power of Authority to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament—

.—(1) The Authority may—

(a) promote a local Bill in Parliament for any purpose which is for the public benefit of the inhabitants of, or of any part of, Greater London; or
(b) oppose any local Bill in Parliament which affects any such inhabitants.

(2) Section 70 of the Local Government Act 1972 (prohibition on promoting Bills for changing local government areas etc) shall have effect in relation to the Authority as it has effect in relation to a local authority.

(3) The functions conferred on the Authority by subsection (1) above shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.

(4) The functions conferred on the Authority by subsection (1)(a) above are exercisable subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of Schedule (Promotion of Bills in Parliament by the Authority) to this Act.

(5) Before exercising the functions conferred on the Authority by subsection (1)(b) above, the Mayor shall consult the Assembly.

(6) No payment shall be made by the Authority (whether acting by the Mayor, the Assembly or the Mayor and Assembly acting jointly) to the Mayor or an Assembly member for acting as counsel or agent in promoting or opposing a Bill under this section.

(7) A London borough council or the Common Council may contribute towards the expenses of the Authority in promoting a local Bill in Parliament.")

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 125, 126, 226, 227, 634, 704, 741 and 744.

Mr. Raynsford: The amendments provide the Greater London Authority, Transport for London and the London


development agency with the power to promote local Bills, and Transport for London with the power to promote and oppose orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
The amendments ensure that any local legislation promoted by the GLA is subject to consultation and that, where it affects the exercise of statutory functions of one or more London local authorities, a consent regime is followed.
The amendments were the subject of careful consultation with representatives of local government in London and with the authorities in both Houses before they were tabled, and were warmly welcomed when they were introduced in another place. We subsequently amended them slightly to ensure consistency of terminology across the provisions.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Liberal Democrats support the amendments. Have the Government legislated to give other development agencies or authorities in England the same Bill-promoting power?

Mr. Raynsford: I am not aware of such legislation, but I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman. This power relates specifically to the provisions for London.

Lords amendment agreed to

Lords amendments Nos. 125 and 126 agreed to

Lords amendment No. 499 disagreed to

Government amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment agreed to

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 127, before clause 67, to insert the following new clause—Amounts for different categories of dwellings—
. In section 30 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (amounts for different categories of dwellings) there shall be added at the end—

"(10) Where the major precepting authority in question is the Greater London Authority, subsections (2)(b) and (4) above shall have effect as if the references to sections 43 to 47 below were references to the appropriate Greater London provisions.
(11) In this section, "the appropriate Greater London provisions" means—

(a) sections 70 to 75 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and section 47 below; or
(b) in the case of calculations by way of substitute, sections 70, 71 and 73 to 75 of, and Schedule 6 to, that Act and section 47 below."")

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 141, 146, 149, 167 to 169, 559, 644, 656 and 795.

Mr. Raynsford: The amendments make minor drafting changes and additions to the finance provisions in the Bill. Amendment No. 127 simply corrects an oversight by amending section 30 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The amendment ensures that section 30 includes a reference to the GLA's budget requirement and

tax-setting provisions, which are set out in the legislation. This will require billing authorities to add to council tax bills the amounts calculated by the GLA under the budget requirement and tax-setting provisions of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 141 and 146 remove unnecessary regulation-making powers from the Bill and make clear under which powers the regulations referred to in clauses 79 and 80 are to be made.
Amendment No. 168 amends section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to ensure that properties occupied by the functional bodies cannot be granted discretionary rate relief by billing authorities. As a major precepting authority, the GLA cannot be granted such relief.
The GLA and the functional bodies will be able to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board, as authorities whose capital finances are regulated under part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Amendments Nos. 169 and 795 are necessary to give the commissioners a complementary power to lend money to the functional bodies.
Amendment Nos. 167 and 656 amend the Local Government Act 1999, which in turn amends the Local Government Finance Act 1992, so that references to the budget requirement and tax-setting provisions of the Greater London Authority Bill are accurate. The amendments are needed because of the insertion of new clauses into the Bill since the Local Government Act 1999 received Royal Assent.
Amendment No. 559 requires any subordinate legislation made by the Secretary of State under clause 317(1) to be approved by an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. Amendments No. 149 and 644 make minor changes in drafting to the Bill.

Sir Sydney Chapman: The amendments can loosely be described as drafting and miscellaneous amendments. At this point—and only at this point—I shall mention a matter that I raised in Committee.
For the first time in legislation—it is an historic development—we are to refer to a presiding officer, in this case of the GLA, as the "chair", rather than as the "chairman". To me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are not an inanimate object, but a chairman. Until now, in modern English usage, the word "chairman" has embraced the female, although we could refer to a woman chairman as "Madam Chairman".
Because I was outvoted, I have to accept that we shall refer to the presiding officer of the Greater London Assembly or the presiding officer of any of its committees as the "chair". The Bill draws upon many other Acts of Parliament, and every one of them refers to such a person as the "chairman". My simple question might now be obvious: do these 820 amendments cover the change of wording from "chairman" to "chair" in all the other legislation mentioned in the Bill—and if not, why not?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point which was debated at some length in Committee. We have adopted a pragmatic approach and


do not seek to change all references to the "chairman" in previous legislation. However, we think that it is right that the term "chair" should be used, and we do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that this is an arcane issue. We are creating a new authority that is designed to appeal to the people of London as we move into the next millennium. We want to ensure that it is seen to be an open authority that is not hidebound by old conventions.
The terminology is not a point of substance. We have simply sought, in a pragmatic way, to create references that will be acceptable to the majority of the population in the years ahead.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 68

ISSUE OF PRECEPTS

Lords amendment: No. 128, in page 36, line 23, leave out from ("for") to end of line 25 and insert
("the reference to sections 43 to 47 below there shall be substituted a reference to the appropriate Greater London provisions;")

5 pm

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in amendment No. 131.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I correct the Minister? We all sometimes get the order of amendments slightly wrong. On this occasion, the lead amendment is amendment No. 128.

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in amendment No. 127—I beg your pardon, Sir Alan—amendment No. 128.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 129, 130, 139, 142 to 145, 147, 148, 150 and 151.

Mr. Raynsford: Amendment No. 128 is a technical amendment, as are the associated amendments. They ensure that when the Authority makes substitute calculations, it does so by reference to the correct provisions, including schedule 6.
If the amendments were not made, the Bill would appear to require substitute calculations to be made in accordance with schedule 5. That, in practice, would prove impossible, as schedule 5 requires calculations to be made by the end of February each year, whereas the need for substitute calculations is unlikely to arise until after the end of February.
Schedule 6 instead provides the appropriate procedure and sets out the roles of mayor and Assembly in making substitute calculations The amendments make it clear that schedule 6 governs the procedure for making substitute calculations.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 129 and 130 agreed to.

Clause 73

CALCULATION OF BASIC AMOUNT OF TAX

Lords amendment: No. 131, in page 39, line 43, after ("report") insert ("or determination")

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 132 to 138, 635 and 640.

Mr. Raynsford: The amendments, like the previous group—which may explain my confusion—are all minor technical amendments that clarify the duties of the mayor and Assembly in setting the GLA consolidated budget, and amend the Secretary of State's powers in the budget-setting process.
Amendment No. 635 is consequential to an amendment made to clause 29 at Commons Report stage. Clause 29 provides that any function of the authority is exercised by the mayor unless specified otherwise. The amendment clarifies that the duty of preparing the budget is shared between the mayor and Assembly, as set out in schedule 5.
Amendment No. 640 removes the Secretary of State's power to change the date of the last day of February by which the GLA's budget must be finalised. It responds to concerns expressed during the Bill's Committee stage in the other place. The Secretary of State will be able to move the 1 February date by which the mayor must present his or her draft consolidated budget to the Assembly. That will allow the Secretary of State to use his discretion in deciding whether to change the date by which the mayor must present the draft budget to take account of any delay in announcing the local government finance settlement.
Amendments Nos. 131 to 138 ensure that the Secretary of State will be able to set out the amounts of general GLA grant that he considers relate to police and non-police services in the determination in which the total amount of general GLA grant paid is set out. That is necessary because the general GLA grant will be the subject of a determination, not a report, and will therefore not be subject to an affirmative or negative resolution procedure. The other items of income used in the calculations of the basic amount of tax and of the special item are all the subject of a report.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 132 to 139 agreed to.

Clause 79

SUBSTITUTE CALCULATIONS UNDER SECTION 49 OF THE 1992 ACT

Lords amendment: No. 140, in page 44, line 20, leave out from ("Authority,") to ("any") in line 22 and insert—
("(i) the amount of any component budget requirement calculated under subsections (4) to (7) of section 70 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999,
(ii) the amount calculated under subsection (8) of that section, or
(iii)")

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 152.

Mr. Raynsford: The amendment, and the associated amendment, No. 152, make minor clarifications to the mayor's powers and duties in relation to the GLA's single finance system.
Amendment No. 140 eliminates an unintended effect of the GLA's power to make substitute calculations. It ensures that the mayor and Assembly cannot re-allocate money from one GLA body to another during the financial year, except to ensure that the Metropolitan Police Authority budget is adequate, following a direction from the Secretary of State, or in the event of an emergency or disaster. The mayor and Assembly will thus, as had always been our intention, be able to use the power to make substitute calculations only to cut both the consolidated and component budgets. For example, a newly elected mayor may want to do that.
Amendment No. 152 amends a possible misunderstanding in respect of clause 105 as it left the House—namely, that the mayor is required to state for each functional body a minimum amount of capital grant he will pay to that body. That was not the intended effect. It was intended to leave the mayor free to decide what capital grant he makes to the functional bodies and to require him to specify an amount only when he decides to pay a body no less than a certain amount. The mayor will, of course, be able to specify in section B of the capital spending plan an amount of nil as the minimum amount of capital grant he will pay to a functional body. He is more likely simply to specify no amount if he has not reached a decision on a minimum amount. The clause as amended will raise no doubts about his ability to do that.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 141 to 153 agreed to.

Clause 112

PROPER FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AND CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER

Lords amendment: No. 154, in page 62, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) No person may be the chief finance officer of two or more relevant authorities at the same time.")

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 155 to 157.

Mr. Raynsford: Amendment No. 154 and the associated amendments clarify the arrangements for appointing chief finance officers for the GLA and functional bodies.
Amendment No. 154 provides that no individual can be simultaneously the chief finance officer of the GLA and a functional body, or of two or more functional bodies. That is necessary to make it absolutely certain that the GLA and the functional bodies do not share chief finance

officers. A key principle of the GLA's finance system is that each body is responsible for managing its own affairs once the GLA's consolidated budget has been set. Allowing bodies to share chief finance officers would have undermined that principle and could have caused conflicts of interest.
Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 provide that the Assembly appoints the GLA's chief finance officer and that the officer is designated from staff appointed by the Assembly rather than from staff appointed by the mayor. Without the amendments, the function of making the appointment would, by default, have fallen to the mayor.
Amendment No. 157 prohibits the mayor from being designated the chief finance officer of Transport for London. The Bill allows it to appoint one of its members, rather than a member of staff, as chief finance officer. As the mayor has the power to decide to chair Transport for London, he or she could be appointed as the body's chief finance officer. That would cause an unacceptable conflict of interest given the mayor's policy responsibilities for transport and powers of direction over Transport for London, and the chief finance officer's duty to ensure proper financial administration.
These amendments tidy the provisions to appoint chief finance officers of the GLA and functional bodies to ensure that they give full effect to our intentions.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 155 to 158 agreed to.

Clause 113

APPLICATION OF PART VIII OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1988

Lords amendment: No. 159, in page 63, line 5, at end insert—
("(board) the London Pensions Fund Authority;"")

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 160 to 166, 513, 514, 647 to 650, 652, 653 and 655.

Mr. Raynsford: You will be relieved to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is the last group of amendments that we shall consider before we discuss transport, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will cover. The group includes two new clauses—amendments Nos. 513 and 514—and consequential amendments, which implement our White Paper commitment to bring the London Pensions Fund Authority under the democratic control of the GLA.
The LPFA, which is currently a quango accountable to the Secretary of State, administers former GLC pensions and employer liabilities and the pensions of certain other bodies admitted to the fund under the local government pension scheme regulations. It cannot be right that a body focused on London and affecting the lives of many people across London is not answerable in some way to a democratically elected authority.
Amendment No. 513 inserts a new clause providing for the mayor to comment each year on the LPFA's budget and on strategic plans drawn up by the body. Amendment


No. 514 inserts a clause transferring from the Secretary of State to the mayor responsibilities for the appointments and tenure of office of members of the LPFA, for determining their remuneration and for receiving reports and information. Amendments Nos. 159 to 166, 647 to 650, 652, 653 and 655 are consequential and deal with the auditing and accounts of the LPFA when it is brought under the authority of the GLA.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 160 to 169 agreed to.

Clause 124

THE MAYOR'S TRANSPORT STRATEGY

Lords amendment: No. 170, in page 67, line 35, after ("problems,") insert—
("(aa) shall specify a timetable for the implementation of the proposals contained in the transport strategy by virtue of paragraph (a) above,")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 171.

Mr. Hill: The amendments followed discussion in this House and another place about the provisions in the Bill in respect of transport for those with mobility problems.
My ministerial colleagues and I have received correspondence from people outside the House expressing concern that the Bill is not inclusive enough of the needs and views of users of accessible transport services. We considered the arguments carefully, both before and during the passage of the Bill. We recognised at an early stage that the special needs of those with mobility problems deserved particular attention. That is why, on introducing the Bill to Parliament, we included a specific provision requiring the mayor to include in his or her transport strategy proposals for the provision of transport accessible to those with mobility problems.
Although we believe that the existing Bill's provisions fully meet concerns over consultation with organisations representing elderly and disabled people, I recognise that there is still concern. We accept that there are advantages in giving a clear signal about the importance that we attach to those issues. Indeed, when we come to discuss the exemptions from congestion charging later in the debate we shall discuss other improvements that we have been able to make.
Amendment No. 171 requires the mayor, when preparing the transport strategy to consult groups representing persons with mobility problems. Amendment No. 170 requires that the mayor set out in the transport strategy a timetable for the implementation of his or her proposals for the provision of transport accessible to persons with mobility problems.
I should stress that the amendments are targeted specifically at the transport strategy, in recognition of the particular impact that the strategy will have on those with mobility problems. The amendments do not affect the provisions covering the mayor's other strategies. Taken

together, they will ensure that transport for those with mobility problems will be a key element of the mayor's transport strategy.
We are committed to comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people. Accessible public transport within the framework of an integrated transport policy must be fundamental in delivering that commitment. The long-term goal must be to ensure that accessible transport is regarded as part of the mainstream transport infrastructure, not as an add-on. There are wider benefits in delivering accessible transport; for example, low-floor buses are easier for the whole travelling public, not just elderly and disabled people.
When I speak of accessible transport, I am not just referring to public transport. We must not forget that many Londoners with mobility problems rely on dedicated door-to-door transport services. The London White Paper set out our commitments in that area. Responsibility for the dedicated door-to-door services currently provided by the dial-a-ride and taxicard schemes will transfer to the new authority. The mayor's duty to include in the transport strategy proposals for accessible transport encompasses proposals for door-to-door services as well as public transport. The amendments further strengthen the provisions in the Bill for accessible transport for those with mobility problems.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We agree that amendment No. 170 adds something of value to the Bill. If one is to have a strategy that requires one to make transport accessible to disabled people, it is sensible to ensure that there is a timetable for doing so; otherwise, it will be based just on hope and aspiration. Those of us who regularly confront the issue of disabled people's frustration with public transport—which, as the Minister said, is linked to the private system—know that a strategy with no timetable would be of little worth.
5.15 pm
Is it the Minister's understanding that the provisions of Lords amendment No. 171 include river transport? If we are serious about integrating river transport, and if this is to be a transport strategy for London, we ought to consider how disabled people can also have access to river transport. It is no good our trying to promote it if, for many of our citizens, it remains as inaccessible as before.
I hope that I can have a positive answer to my question about Lords amendment No. 171, in return for my positive approbation for Lords amendment No. 170.

Mr. Hill: In response to the typically constructive and positive approach adopted by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I am delighted to affirm that river services form part of the transport strategy for people with mobility problems, and that that is an entirely proper subject for the mayor and the Assembly to consider in devising a transport strategy for London.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 171 agreed to.

Clause 126

DUTIES OF LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 172, in page 68, line 21, at end insert—
("(4) In exercising any functions in relation to the management of roads or traffic in a Royal Park in Greater London the Secretary of State shall have regard to the transport strategy.
(5) In this section "Royal Park" means any park to which the Parks Regulation Act 1872 applies (see sections 1 and 3 of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926).")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 372 and 414.

Mr. Hill: The amendments follow discussion in this House and in another place about the relationship between the Royal Parks Agency and local highway and traffic authorities in the context of road closures and other changes regarding highways and traffic. In the light of those discussions, we have amended the Bill to require the Royal Parks Agency to have regard to the mayor's transport strategy, and to introduce for the first time a statutory consultation arrangement between the royal parks and the local highways and traffic authorities.
Lords amendment No. 172 provides that the Secretary of State—which in practice means the Royal Parks Agency—must have regard to the mayor's transport strategy when carrying out any functions relating to the management of roads and traffic in a royal park.
Lords amendment No. 372 provides that, if the agency proposes to carry out functions that are likely to affect a road for which another authority is the highway authority, it must consult that authority. Similarly, if a highway authority proposes to carry out functions that are likely to affect a royal park, the authority must consult the agency. The one exception is that, when it would not be reasonably practicable for the agency to consult the highway authority—or vice versa—before the functions are carried out, each may go ahead and tell the other body afterwards.
Lords amendment No. 414 provides that, if the agency proposes to carry out functions that are likely to affect a road for which another authority is the traffic authority, the agency must consult the authority and Transport for London. Similarly, if a traffic authority proposes to carry out functions that are likely to affect a royal park, it must consult the agency. Again, the one exception is that, when it would not be reasonably practicable for the agency to consult the borough or Transport for London—or vice versa—before the functions are carried out, the agency or the traffic authority may go ahead and tell the other body afterwards.

Mr. Tom Brake: I support the amendments. It is entirely right not only for local authorities and other bodies but for the Secretary of State, who is responsible for royal parks, to have regard to the mayor's transport strategy.
There are a number of main arteries in London that pass through the royal parks, the opening and closing of which can have a major impact on roads in their vicinity. I hope that, for that reason alone, the House will support the amendments.

Mr. Brooke: I, too, appreciate the moves that the Government have made. In Committee on 16 February, at column 599, in response to a mischievous and provocative speech by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—I say that in friendly terms—I made paving reference to a point that I came back to on clause 179. In columns 963 and 964, I raised the problem of the lack of connection in traffic control between the royal parks and the rest of Greater London, including the adjacent local authorities. The then Minister for Transport in London, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) explained that there were no powers to enable the bridging of that gap.
The matter was debated twice in Committee in the Lords. On 19 October, Lord Whitty moved these amendments, which are an excellent development. It is a vindication of the parliamentary process that we have come to such a good solution—one that people surrounding the royal parks have been crying out for for ages. I salute the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for being such a pleasure to do business with, in marked contrast with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has cut funding to the royal parks, insisted that they must have a series of concerts, interrupting their quietude, and allowed a series of Albanian hot dog vendors to run not in a manner that is liable to turn the royal parks into a version of Coney island. I unreservedly commend the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for his kind words. I also pay tribute to the outstanding contribution made by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on the issue. The Bill and the whole of London have benefited from it and we are very grateful to him.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 129

POWER OF THE MAYOR TO PREPARE A PLAN

Lords amendment: No. 173, in page 69, line 36, leave out from ("refuses") to ("unless") in line 39, and insert
("to approve under subsection (2) of section 128 above a local implementation plan, the London borough council which submitted the plan shall prepare a new local implementation plan and submit it to the Mayor under subsection (1) of that section")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 174 to 193.

Mr. Hill: When the clauses relating to local implementation plans were discussed in this House, we were pressed on why we had not included any provisions for review of the plans. We were also asked why the mayor could claim for the boroughs only reasonable


administrative expenses rather than all reasonable expenses, if he or she had to intervene to implement a plan. We agreed to reflect on those issues.
The amendments were added to the Bill in another place. I am sorry that so many amendments were required, but it is necessary to ensure that the same process is followed for a revised plan as for the original.

Lords amendment agreed to

Lords amendments Nos. 174 to 193 agreed to.

Clause 135

STRUCTURE OF FARES AND SERVICES.

Lords amendment: No. 194, in page 72, line 36, at end insert
("or in pursuance of a transport subsidiary's agreement")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 195 to 212, 703 and amendments (a) to (e) thereto, 214, 215, 223 and amendment (a) thereto and motion to disagree, 224, 225, 228, 232 to 234, 235 and amendment (a) thereto, 236 to 238, 334, 336, 338, 346, 423, 565, 566, 572, 577, 582, 657, 659 to 696, 698 to 702, 712, 714, 715, 717 and 799 to 801.

Mr. Hill: The House is enormously grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I may say so, that was beautifully enunciated.
The amendments in this group are largely technical improvements to the detailed transport functions of the mayor and Transport for London. Some are reproductions of current statutory functions of London Transport—functions conferred on London Transport under legislation introduced by a Conservative Government. Some of them represent a positive reaction to points which have been raised in the other place.
Some concern new powers and duties to reflect the wider responsibilities of Transport for London and the integrated approach which it will be able to take to transport in the capital. The amendments are intended to be helpful, and do not alter the basic structure of the Bill.
I hope that it will assist the House—as I describe the general effect of these amendments—if I distinguish between those which give Transport for London its powers, those which impose duties and those which are editorial or technical in nature. It may also help if I give some illustrative examples of each type of amendment. I should mention that this group also includes a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to enable the current tax status of Transport for London's predecessor bodies to be maintained once those bodies have transferred to Transport for London.
Let me deal first with the powers which this group of amendments gives to Transport for London. TfL will, of course, be a new organisation, but it will need to have many of the same powers as its predecessors. These amendments ensure that the relevant powers of London

Transport are passed to Transport for London. For example, the amendments give it the power to make railway byelaws.
The amendments also allow Transport for London to run a transport museum and to pay grants to bodies such as the dial-a-ride companies. Those activities are of course already undertaken by London Transport, and will be continued by Transport for London. However, Transport for London will need not only to inherit the relevant powers of its predecessor bodies, but to have powers to discharge its wider statutory duties and to reflect the changing nature of transport provision. The amendments allow for that.
For example, the amendments give Transport for London the power to form joint venture companies and to provide transport facilities without itself having to run services to and from those facilities. The amendments recognise that Transport for London's responsibilities will not be limited to passenger transport. It will thus have the power to provide intermodal freight facilities—a point suggested by my noble Friend Lord Berkeley in the other place.
The duties imposed on Transport for London by the amendments relate primarily to the provision of information. Amendment No. 236 requires Transport for London annually to inform local authorities and the London Transport Users Committee of its plans for fares and services, and to publish details of its fares. Again, this is a reproduction of a current duty of London Transport. However, we have also given Transport for London a new duty—I ought to mention that we were prompted to do so by Conservative peers—to provide information to the public about the Transport for London public transport services. This duty builds upon the present travel information service provided by London Transport to its customers, and will assist in the delivery of the passenger transport information 2000 initiative to provide a national public transport information service during the course of next year.
We have made a number of editorial and technical changes. For example, we have included provisions allowing Transport for London to fulfil the contractual obligations of predecessor bodies so that there is no disruption to services. We have provided for Transport for London to make transfer schemes for the distribution of property among its subsidiaries, so that the mayor can structure Transport for London and its transport functions as he or she wishes.
Government amendments (a) to (e) to Lords amendment No. 703 make technical and consequential changes relating to the operation and the interpretation of the new schedule on Transport for London transfer schemes.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, these amendments complete the toolkit which Transport for London will need to deliver the mayor's vision for transport in the capital. I am conscious that, in the time available to us today, it might be inappropriate for me to describe the amendments in exhaustive detail, but I will try to answer any queries that hon. Members may have, either now or in writing.

Mr. Brake: I should like to speak specifically to Lords amendment No. 223, which Liberal Democrat Members oppose and on which we shall seek to divide the House.


First, however, I should point out that the Table Office has made a drafting error in our amendment (a). We have proposed omitting from "Secretary of State", in line 41, to "the", in line 42, as we accept that the mayor should be able to authorise the issue of shares, stock and—as we propose—bonds.
5.30 pm
London's transport system is undoubtedly in a shambles—we are able to see with our own eyes the evidence of that fact. Some months ago, I tabled a private notice question on delays on the underground between 1994–95 and 1998–99. The fact is that, in that period, delays increased by 25 per cent. or more. My own experience of travelling by bus, tube or train from Wallington to Westminster has also confirmed that delays have increased.
We have had very significant transport fare increases. Moreover, on 9 January, fares on the underground will increase by 2.5 per cent., whereas inflation is running well below that. The real fare increase, therefore, will be about 50 per cent. above inflation. Against that background, the mayor should be given all possible financial options so that he or she is able to invest the sums necessary to take our underground system from the 19th to the 21st century.
Liberal Democrat Members certainly welcome the Government's agreement that the mayor should be able to raise money in share issues—in Committee, we were pushing for such a provision—but we should also like the mayor to be given the option of issuing not only shares, but bonds. Our amendment (a) would provide the mayor with that option.
Around the world, there are many examples—New York is one—of transport systems that have been funded by bond issues. Many of the original tube lines were financed by bond issues. The mayor may need to use that financial option if the public-private partnership does not proceed—although hon. Members may not think that that is a possibility.
In a parliamentary question, I asked when the PPP contracts would be signed, and was told that they would be signed "when they are ready". That was a very helpful response, and I was pleased to hear that the contracts will not be signed before they are ready. The response continued:
We have learned the lessons of rail privatisation and will not impose a politically driven timetable at the expense of ensuring that the resulting deal is right."—[Official Report, 2 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 78.]
It is, therefore, entirely possible that the PPP will not proceed.
What if the PPP does not prove to offer best value and fails the public sector comparative test? Hon. Members may be thinking, "Surely that couldn't happen. Surely the Government have already confirmed that the PPP will pass the public sector comparative test before contracts are signed." However, I do not believe that that is the case. In a debate earlier this year, the then Minister for Transport said:
I have made it clear that, in the private-public partnership, the value-for-money proposal will be the criterion against which all our proposals are tested. The Government will not implement a public-private partnership unless we are entirely satisfied that it will secure best value for the taxpayer."—[Official Report, 27 January 1999: Vol. 324, c. 413.]

At what point will the Government be able to confirm whether the PPP secures best value? Such questions have prompted our desire to provide the mayor with the additional financial option of issuing bonds, so that he or she will have fall-back funding if the PPP proposals should fall apart.
What exactly are the Government's objections to issuing bonds? Last week, in another place, we were given an explanation for their objection. The Government said that they believed that the PPP that they are putting together would prove to be better value than bond financing. I hardly consider that a ringing endorsement of the PPP—but it is not a damning criticism of bonds, either.
Having outlined the reasons why the Government should take on board our modest amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 223, I shall also speak in favour of another amendment in the group—amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) to Lords amendment No. 235. That amendment seems sensible to us.
In my constituency of Carshalton and Wallington there is strong demand for transport infrastructure improvements. For instance, many residents would welcome the extension of the Croydon tramlink into Carshalton and Wallington, and on to Sutton. The amendment would allow the borough of Sutton to enter into discussions with Transport for London to provide such an extension.
I urge the Government at this late hour to accept our motion to disagree with Lords amendment No. 223. They have nothing to lose, and Londoners have much to gain.

Mr. John McDonnell: I shall speak to amendment (a), tabled in my name to Lords amendment No. 235. Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recall—or they may not—that I tabled an amendment then that would have allowed the mayor to enter into a voluntary arrangement with the City of London corporation for a voluntary contribution towards infrastructure projects in London. That was not a duplicitous plot to undermine the financial standing of the corporation—I wish that it had been—but simply an attempt to release resources for the benefit of London, especially for transport infrastructure projects.
The amendment built upon the attempts that we have made over the past 10 years to encourage voluntary agreements between the City of London corporation and Londonwide local government and service structures overall, to provide the necessary resources for the development of infrastructure projects, especially for transport but also for environmental purposes.
My amendment would build on Lords amendment No. 235, which would enable Transport for London to enter into agreements with the common council of the City of London corporation and London boroughs for the provision of transport services, but it would also clarify the fact that the definition should include transport infrastructure projects as well.
Hon. Members representing constituencies throughout London have made clear the need for long-term investment in transport infrastructure projects. The amendment would enable the same clarity to exist in relation to the question of where the resources will come from. I note that all three contenders for selection as Labour candidate for mayor have expressed support for


the concept of "going to the City" to finance infrastructure projects in London, and within the definition of the City, I would include the City of London corporation itself.
I will have to be convinced during the debate of the reasons why the Government do not wish to accept the amendment to facilitate the issuing of bonds. I agree with those who say that we should maximise the flexibility for the new Greater London Authority, the mayor and Transport for London to draw upon a range of resources to fund transport developments in London.
I do not support the public-private partnership. I understand the arguments in favour of it that have been mobilised in the House and elsewhere, but there are elements of risk involved. Putting that to one side, however, even if the PPP were the best option for now, we would not wish to prevent a future administration from being able to draw upon other financial sources.
The amendment would provide the opportunity not only for shares to be issued but for bonds to be drawn upon. I shall need convincing of the reasons why we should rule that out in the long term. The Government may not want to support the idea now, but at some future stage it might give the mayor and the new strategic authority the necessary flexibility. We should not use the Bill to prohibit that, and if I am not convinced by the Government's reasons, I shall support the amendment in the Lobby.

Mr. Hill: I shall deal first with amendment (a) tabled by my hon. Friend he Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) to Lords amendment No. 235. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his amendment, but I hope that I can persuade him that it is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 235 provides for the retention of the existing powers of London local authorities other than the GLA to procure additional rail services and facilities from the franchising director and train operating companies, and of local authority powers to enter into agreements with Transport for London for additional services and facilities. Those powers are currently available to London local authorities under sections 28 and 59 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984.
Amendment (a) would mean that the powers of London local authorities would include the ability to enter into agreements for transport infrastructure projects, as well as for facilities and services. Local authorities' powers under amendment No. 235 are really designed to allow them to secure services and facilities that would not otherwise be provided by Transport for London or rail operators. For example, a London borough might use those powers to arrange for additional bus services to cater for a special event. However, transport infrastructure projects are neither facilities nor services, although it is possible that a project might result in facilities or services being provided. I fear that amendment (a) confuses the idea of a project, which could require new facilities and services, with the provision of those facilities and services. Local authorities do not necessarily need powers to embark on a project, but they do need powers to do things in connection with those projects. Amendment No. 235 will give them the necessary powers.
I should also mention that any proposal for a large transport infrastructure project could require statutory authority, either by means of a Bill or by the making of

an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 by the Secretary of State. London boroughs and Transport for London have the power to promote applications for such orders. Accepting amendment (a) could create some uncertainty in that area, and I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington to withdraw it.

Mr. McDonnell: I am happy to withdraw my amendment on the basis of a simple statement from my hon. Friend. Under the existing proposed legislation, will the mayor, the authority or Transport for London have the ability to enter into a voluntary arrangement with the City of London corporation, or a London borough, to fund a transport infrastructure project? I give the example of the City of London corporation because it proposed the idea some seven or eight years ago, and intimated that it would be willing to enter into a voluntary agreement on such projects with any new organisation or with the Government.

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend asks whether the mayor can enter into agreements with City institutions or London local authorities for the financing of a major infrastructure project—for example, crossrail. The answer is yes, in principle. The Bill will give the mayor and Transport for London extensive powers—broadly similar to those that London Transport has now—to enter into agreements for transport purposes. Of course, much would depend on the precise form of the proposed agreements, and that would no doubt need to be looked at carefully if and when a proposal emerged.
Transport for London will of course be free to negotiate private finance initiative deals, to finance transport projects, for example, as long as they are considered off balance sheet. In other words, if sufficient risk is transferred to the private sector, the borrowing will not score against public expenditure or need credit approvals.
Under Lords amendment No. 235 local authorities will be able to enter into agreements with Transport for London regarding the provision of transport services and facilities. That will provide considerable scope for undertaking joint projects. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington will be satisfied by those wide-ranging reassurances.

Mr. McDonnell: It will take just one more sentence to satisfy me. My understanding of what my hon. Friend has said is that it will be perfectly appropriate for the new mayor and Authority, after next May's election, to approach the City of London corporation and request a voluntary agreement to fund crossrail, for example, although a more important example might involve the Central line extension to Uxbridge. Will my hon. Friend confirm that my understanding is correct?

Mr. Hill: I think that I have answered that question already by saying yes, in principle.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asserted several times that, under some new arrangement, the mayor will be permitted to float shares. I wish to emphasise that the mayor will not have that power. Although Transport for London can form


companies, it cannot sell the shares in those companies if to do so would result in the contracting out of the operations of underground trains or stations.
On amendment No. 223(a)—

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman asks to intervene a little early in my explanation, and I have to note that he was not in the Chamber for the beginning of this debate.

Mr. Hughes: I was in the Chamber, but I was somewhere else. [Interruption.] I was on another Bench. Will the Minister clarify what he said about the mayor? My understanding of the Government amendment agreed to in the Lords, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred, is that the Government were happy to accept the argument advanced by Opposition Members in Committee. That amendment appears to propose that the mayor rather than the Secretary of State would have the power to raise shares. Will the Minister confirm that that is indeed what is proposed?

Mr. Hill: I am pleased to clarify that point. The purpose of the amendment is to transfer to the mayor the power of the Secretary of State to authorise the issue of shares by Transport for London to a person other than Transport for London or its subsidiaries. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that I did not spot him when he was hiding elsewhere in the Chamber.
The Bill already confers powers on the Greater London Authority and its functional bodies to borrow money within the existing local authority finance framework. That includes borrowing by issuing bonds, as well as borrowing through credit approvals, entering into a private finance initiative arrangement or making a case for additional funding to the Greater London Authority transport grant.
Under the current local government finance regime, a bond issued by one of those bodies would count as public borrowing. It would need to be secured against all the revenues of the authority and could not be secured against a particular revenue stream. A bond issued by a Greater London Authority body would be a more expensive way of raising money than if the Government borrowed the money themselves. In practice, local authorities rarely borrow by issuing bonds, because it is cheaper and easier to borrow from the Public Works Loans Board.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington both asked why neither the Greater London Authority nor Transport for London might issue bonds secured normally against a revenue stream from a congestion-charging regime. The answer is that borrowing through a bond secured against the revenues from a congestion-charging regime still counts as public expenditure under the current local government finance regime.
As I have already explained, bonds must currently be secured against all the revenues of the authority and not just against one revenue stream. There would be no advantage in allowing borrowing secured against the revenue from a single project, such as a congestion-charging scheme, as it would offer lenders less security and would cost more. However, we are reviewing the

local government finance regime. In particular, we are examining the possibility of allowing local authorities to borrow, subject only to limits relating the level of debt to their future income, and the use of prudential indicators to regulate borrowing.
We plan to publish a consultation paper in the spring, following completion of the review. The Greater London Authority, along with local authorities in general, will, of course, benefit from any changes that may follow the review, although it is too early to say what those may be or when they might be put into effect.

Mr. Hughes: I understand the Minister's argument but—and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) is more expert than I am—it may not be sufficient. The Minister that the Government plan to issue a consultation document in the spring after the review. But any decision may be made too late for the new GLA, which will be elected in May and in power from July, if it is to address what is an immediate issue. That is a defect in the Minister's argument, because the power may come too late for the GLA to act.

Mr. Hill: Let me seek to interpret the hon. Gentleman's point. I take it that the immediate issue to which he refers is new investment in the London underground system. Let me reassure the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Carshalton and Wallington that good progress has been made in implementing the London Underground public-private partnership proposals since my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced them in March last year.
On 7 October, London Transport announced that five consortiums had pre-qualified for the infrastructure contracts, and would be invited to tender for the deep tube infrastructure contracts. Invitation to tender documents were issued on 19 October, and bids are due back by March 2000. We are confident that the scheme is going ahead and that it will be successful.

Mr. Hughes: I understand the Government's plan, but some of us, including Conservative Members, are not happy with it. If the mayor and Assembly elected in May have different ideas about the project, does the Minister accept that the rejection the amendment would preclude the mayor and Authority from raising money in the short term by a bond issue, unless the Government had decided to change their whole policy on local government financing?

Mr. Hill: The blunt truth is that they would be precluded in the short term. However, the Government are confident about the timetable, and that achievement of the London Underground PPP project is well on course, so that it will be delivering to London, as scheduled, in the course of 2001.
In conclusion, I hope that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will be content with my reply and will not seek to press the amendment to a Division.

Mr. Brake: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak a second time. I was hoping that the amendment would be moved formally at a later stage. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking the leave of the House?

Mr. Brake: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened carefully to the Minister's


response. He gave no clear reason why the mayor should not have the flexibility to issue bonds secured against a number of revenue streams, not necessarily a single revenue stream. I believe that many of his objections to the amendment are Government-imposed restrictions relating to the public sector borrowing requirement and the Government's timetable for future business. I am afraid, therefore, that we ought to press the amendment to the vote.
I am disappointed that Conservative Members have not supported us on the issue, as I do not believe that there are any reasons to restrict the mayor's flexibility unnecessarily. The mayor needs to have as many options as possible for raising funds for transport.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 195 to 212 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

Lords amendment No. 703 and Government amendments (a) to (d) thereto, and consequential Government amendment (e) agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 213 to 215 agreed to.

Clause 141

RESTRICTIONS ON THE DISPOSAL OF LAND

Lords amendment: No. 216, in page 76, line 14, leave out ("Transport for London shall not") and insert
("Neither Transport for London nor the Authority shall")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 217 to 222 and 567.

Mr. Hill: When the Bill left this House, clause 141 and parts of clause 140 placed restrictions on Transport for London's ability to dispose of operational railway and tramway land. The clause is designed to prevent the permanent sale of key operational assets, primarily underground and docklands light railway lines and stations. Transport for London is required to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to such disposals. However, the Bill as drafted required Transport for London to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to any disposal of operational railway or tramway land. The Government acknowledge that this formulation was unduly restrictive. It might have meant that Transport for London had to seek consent to all land disposals, instead of just those involving underground and DLR lines and stations.
The amendments, therefore, gave effect to a previous ministerial undertaking that the restrictions on disposal of land would be refined to give Transport for London some operational flexibility over its property portfolio.
The amendments change the definition of operational land, so that the Secretary of State's consent to disposal will not be required when the land in question is comparable to land in general, rather than land used for railway purposes. Amendment No. 220 provides that where underground or DLR lines or stations cease to be used for railway purposes, disposal will not be permitted

without the Secretary of State's consent for a period of five years thereafter, or such other period as the Secretary of State may determine by order.
We think that the amendments strike the right balance between the need for Transport for London to have some operational flexibility and the protection of key operational assets.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 217 to 222 agreed to.

Clause 142

CONTROL OF SUBSIDIARIES

Lords amendment: No. 223, in page 76, line 41, leave out ("Secretary of State,") and insert ("Mayor,")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Hill.]

The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 25.

Division No. 296]
[6 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clwyd, Ann


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Coaker, Vernon


Ashton, Joe
Coffey, Ms Ann


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cohen, Harry


Atkins, Charlotte
Coleman, Iain


Austin, John
Connarty, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barron, Kevin
Cooper, Yvette


Bayley, Hugh
Corbett, Robin


Beard, Nigel
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corston, Jean


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cousins, Jim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cox, Tom


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cranston, Ross


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bennett, Andrew F
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cummings, John


Berry, Roger
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Blizzard, Bob
Dalyell, Tam


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Borrow, David
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Browne, Desmond
Dean, Mrs Janet


Buck, Ms Karen
Denham, John


Burden, Richard
Dobbin, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Donohoe, Brian H


Butler, Mrs Christine
Doran, Frank


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Drew, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Edwards, Huw


Caplin, Ivor
Efford, Clive


Casale, Roger
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caton, Martin
Etherington, Bill


Chaytor, David
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Clapham, Michael
Fisher, Mark


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Fitzsimons, Lorna



Flint, Caroline






Flynn, Paul
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Follett, Barbara
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Levitt, Tom


Fyfe, Maria
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gapes, Mike
Linton, Martin


Gardiner, Barry
Livingstone, Ken


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gerrard, Neil
Lock, David


Gibson, Dr Ian
Love, Andrew


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McAvoy, Thomas


Godman, Dr Norman A
McCabe, Steve


Godsiff, Roger
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Goggins, Paul
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Golding, Mrs Llin



Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McIsaac, Shona


Grocott, Bruce
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grogan, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gunnell, John
McNulty, Tony


Hain, Peter
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McWilliam, John


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mallaber, Judy


Hanson, David
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Healey, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hepburn, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Heppell, John
Meale, Alan


Hesford, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hill, Keith
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Miller, Andrew


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moffatt, Laura


Hood, Jimmy
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hope, Phil
Mountford, Kali


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hurst, Alan
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hutton, John
Olner, Bill


Illsley, Eric
O'Neill, Martin


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jamieson, David
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jenkins, Brian
Palmer, Dr Nick


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pearson, Ian


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Perham, Ms Linda



Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pound, Stephen



Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prescott Rt Hon John


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Prosser, Gwyn


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Purchase, Ken


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Kemp, Fraser
Rammell, Bill


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rapson, Syd


Khabra, Piara S
Raynsford, Nick


Kidney, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rogers, Allan





Rooker, Jeff
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Roy, Frank
Timms, Stephen


Ruane, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Ruddock, Joan
Todd, Mark


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Touhig, Don


Ryan, Ms Joan
Truswell, Paul


Salter, Martin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Shaw, Jonathan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sheerman, Barry
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tynan, Bill


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Walley, Ms Joan


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Ward, Ms Claire


Singh, Marsha
Wareing, Robert N


Skinner, Dennis
Watts, David


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
White, Brian


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wicks, Malcolm


Southworth, Ms Helen
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Steinberg, Gerry
Winnick, David


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wise, Audrey


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wood, Mike


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Woolas, Phil


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Worthington, Tony


Stringer, Graham
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wyatt, Derek


Sutcliffe, Gerry



Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Mr. David Clelland.


NOES


Allan, Richard
Keetch, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Brake, Tom



Brand, Dr Peter
Kirkwood, Archy


Breed, Colin
Llwyd, Elfyn



Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Burstow, Paul
Rendel, David


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)



Sanders, Adrian


Cotter, Brian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fearn, Ronnie
Webb, Steve


Foster, Don (Bath)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Hancock, Mike



Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. Andrew Stunell and


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Edward Davey.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 224 to 228 agreed to.

Clause 143

POWERS OF DISPOSAL

Lords amendment: No. 229, in page 77, line 3, leave out ("In")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 230, 231, 297 to 333, 335, 569 and 705 to 707.

Mr. Hill: Again, I—

Mr. Edward Davey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you investigate the fact that, apparently, the Division Bells are not ringing in Norman Shaw North?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That point has already been made and steps are being taken to investigate the matter.

Mr. Hill: This group of amendments makes a number of largely technical or clarifying changes to the provisions relating to the London Underground public-private partnership. The structure and overall effect of the PPP provisions remain the same as they were when this House last considered the Bill.
The first batch of amendments relates to PPP agreements and the arrangements for designating key assets. Amendments Nos. 287, 299, 300 and 335 extend to a subsidiary of London Regional Transport and Transport for London the powers already held by those parent bodies to enter into PPP agreements and to designate key system assets for the special protection provided by the Bill.
Amendment No. 298 provides for the PPP agreements to be entered into while infrastructure companies are still subsidiaries of London Underground Ltd. Amendments Nos. 301 to 304 give Transport for London greater flexibility over the format, but not the content, of the information about key assets that it is required to make publicly available.
Amendments Nos. 305 to 310 and amendment No. 329 provide for TfL to make transfer schemes for the distribution of property among its subsidiaries and PPP companies, so as to enable the mayor to retrieve all protected assets at the end of PPP contracts.
The second and largest batch of amendments—Nos. 318 to 328, 330 to 333, and 560—adjust and expand the existing provisions regarding the PPP arbiter, a post created by the Bill to determine the price to be paid by London Underground for the work undertaken by a PPP company, if a dispute were to arise at a periodic review of the contract. The provisions allow the same person to hold the offices of Rail Regulator and arbiter, although I stress that no decision has been taken on an appointment. The provisions clarify the circumstances in which the arbiter can issue directions and guidance; refine the drafting of some of his statutory duties; provide legal protections and sanctions relating to his information-gathering powers; and ensure that terms used in the chapter are adequately defined.
The third batch of amendments makes technical or editorial changes. Amendments Nos. 229 to 231 clarify London Transport's existing powers of disposal. Amendments Nos. 311 to 317 adjust the existing land provisions to avoid uncertainty in the treatment of PPP leases. Amendments Nos. 705 to 707 delete a couple of superfluous provisions in schedule 11.

Mr. Woodward: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his explanation of this group of amendments. We have a special interest in amendment No. 332. Our interest is heightened because I am aware that the hon. Gentleman,

who is relatively new to his post, has, like Opposition Members, had some difficulty in fathoming the extraordinary number of amendments that we have had to consider.
The job of the Opposition has been made especially difficult by the absence—by and large—of explanatory notes for the amendments. Last Wednesday, the day before we first considered Lords amendments to the Bill, the Under-Secretary made some notes available. As there are 818 Government amendments, it has, however, been extremely difficult to cope at this late stage with the explanatory notes, which do not in any case include an explanation of many of the amendments. I hope that my preamble is giving the Minister for Housing and Planning time to provide his assistant with the necessary information to cope with my comments. My questions are genuine. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will be able to satisfy us—perhaps not. We look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Amendment No. 332 follows on from the previous amendment—they are interrelated and deal with the power of the PPP arbiter to requisition any information that he desires, within legal bounds. However, amendment No. 332 seems to restrict the arbiter from making some of the information public. Its stated purpose is to give statutory protection to third parties against the disclosure of information collected by the arbiter. How do the Government reconcile that protection with the principle of open government and freedom of information? What has happened to the principle of freedom of information in the Bill?
We now know that some serious questions have to be answered regarding safety in our public transport system. For that reason, some people have been especially concerned about whether it is appropriate to continue to hold negotiations between Railtrack, the Secretary of State and five of the London tube lines. Questions have been put about freedom of information and the background to those negotiations, but the Secretary of State has strenuously refused to supply an answer. If the amendment were accepted, would it mean that, if Railtrack did not want to disclose information, it would—or could—have the power to stop that disclosure?
People are rightly concerned that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has been content to hold secret negotiations with Railtrack, despite concerns about safety, and that he continues to refuse to allow information to enter the public domain in any shape or form. We have no information about his negotiations: we know nothing about the tender, or about the demands he is making with regard to safety. The answer to those and many other questions is that we simply do not know.
Perhaps when he has finished consulting his colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning, the Under-Secretary will he able to answer our questions. If he cannot, I am sure that his right hon. Friend will take time off from his campaign duties to advise the House. In the current circumstances of concern about public transport, secrecy is unfair. Why should the travelling public not know what is happening to the currently publicly owned tube? Why, in the age of open government, can information pertaining to the relationship between the PPP and, for example, the Civil Aviation Authority, be obliged to be made public, whereas


information pertaining to discussions between Ministers and Railtrack on the PPP remain secret? What guarantees are being made in respect of safety?
We know that large numbers of trains on the underground—a system held in public ownership—have gone through red lights. We know that a train protection system is in use on the underground. As Ministers will know, concerns have been raised by those working on underground trains about the adequacy of that train protection system. Will the PPP arbiter be obliged to keep background details about such safety issues, and can that information be made public? Will the arbiter have access to all the papers currently in the possession of the Secretary of State as he takes advice on those issues? Will he have access, as the House does not, to the unpublished Deloitte and Touche report on the PPP, which we believe says that the PPP cannot work and will not work commercially without a dramatic increase in fares and a diminution of service provision to the public? What access will the Assembly have to information held by the arbiter? If the people of London cannot have it, will the Assembly be allowed to see it?
Subsection (4) of amendment No. 332 would appear to give the Secretary of State the order-making power to modify the preceding subsections, as and when he wants, and so to undermine subsections (2) and (3). What is the reason for that provision, and in what circumstances would it be used by the Secretary of State?
The amendments would appear to be ill-considered. Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide a genuinely satisfactory explanation and tell us that the PPP arbiter will be able to gain the necessary information and that all the information will be made public. Perpetuating a climate of secrecy is the wrong way to proceed in the current circumstances. As for the on-going negotiations with Railtrack, does amendment No. 332 mean that Railtrack could be obliged to disclose information, or that the company could say, as the amendment suggests it could, that the information was not
for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by
the Secretary of State or others
of any or his or, as the case may be, its functions",
and so could remain secret?

Mr. Brake: The House heard earlier the rather weak and confused grounds on which the mayor is to be denied the opportunity to issue bonds. Now we have heard the Minister's explanation of the current group of amendments, but many doubts about the PPP remain.
First and foremost of those concerns is the role of Railtrack in the public-private partnership, to which amendment No. 332 is highly relevant. We need to know what negotiations with Railtrack are taking place; why the subsurface lines have not been put out to tender; and whether there is any likelihood that that might in future be subject to legal challenge on the grounds that it is anti-competitive.
What is the timetable for signing the PPP contracts? Earlier, I quoted a response to a parliamentary question in which I was told that the contracts would be signed when they were ready; that is not a satisfactory response. If they are to be signed in 18 months or two years, what impact will that have on the availability of funds for investing in the tube during the period before the PPP kicks in?
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions in detail. We have faced continuous stalling, month after month and year after year. Unless the Minister is able to provide a satisfactory response, many hon. Members will go away believing that the PPP is off course and bound to fail.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). We are clearly entering new territory with the concept of the public-private partnership. My view is that a service or industry is either in the public sector or privatised, and that to try to mix the two does not augur well unless the parties involved have information and unless that information is open to the public to judge for themselves.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asked why the subsurface lines were not being put out to tender. Incidentally, I should like to put on record the fact that "subsurface" is a contradiction in terms, but, setting that aside, there must be some explanation. In addition, if one is to try to make the concept of public-private partnership work, the length of the contracts to be awarded is crucial, as are the back-up compensation clauses for the private organisation that has its tender accepted.
A myriad of issues must be addressed—if not before the Bill is passed, then when the PPP concept begins to take shape. The Government have prided themselves on open government and joined-up government; sadly, in respect of putting flesh on the bones of PPP, they have achieved neither.

Mr. Edward Davey: I rise to support the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) in respect of his concerns about amendment No. 332 and the restrictions on disclosure of information.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we debated the matter in Committee, where we expressed our concern about the financial modelling of the PPP scheme. Ministers told us that we had nothing to worry about and that huge fare increases were not contained in the modelling. The consultants' report which the Government used to dream up the scheme contained no assumption of huge tube fare rises. However, only recently, London Transport has announced that fares on the London underground are to rise by 7 per cent.—that is incredibly worrying as it goes against the spirit of many of the speeches made by Ministers in the Committee.

Mr. Woodward: I am struck by the way in which, whereas Ministers have resorted throughout our two-day debate to saying that all the Lords amendments are technical, if we examine one amendment and pull it apart, we find that it is anything but technical and has implications that extend well beyond the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
Returning to the matter of fares, the PPP scheme and future versions of the PPP scheme as considered by the PPP arbiter, are we going to find in future years that large fare increases have been negotiated yet again? Behind the PPP and the secret negotiations, is there a hidden agenda of fare rises stretching into the future? If London


Transport is prepared to announce publicly a 7 per cent. rise before the GLA elections, what is being decided behind closed doors, out of public view?
I am incredibly worried by the amendments, which make problems that were highlighted in Committee even worse. Most disturbing is the fact that, during the run-up to the GLA elections, when the different parties put before the people of London their different models and agendas for London transport, we shall not know what financial modelling assumptions lie behind the PPP scheme and the negotiations that will be going on at that time.
6.30 pm
Perhaps the Greater London Authority, as it takes power and starts its work, will not be informed until the PPP has been signed. Until it has been signed, the mayor will not be privy to the assumptions behind it. The absurd situation could therefore arise in which the mayor and the Assembly members had fought an election without knowing the fare increases that had been debated in the negotiations on the PPP. Such secrecy makes a mockery of open government and of the Government's claim that they are modernising their methods of government.
I hope that the Government will withdraw amendment No. 332 because the debate exposes their vulnerability to attack during the election campaign. We shall be able to claim that they try to prevent debate and refuse to provide information on their plans. Unless the Government are prepared to withdraw such gagging measures, I warn the Minister that we shall have the benefit of the Government's actions as proof to back up our argument that they have a secret agenda of fare rises.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I want to speak briefly to the amendments, and pick up one or two of the anxieties that have been expressed by Conservative Front Benchers and my hon. Friends.
The PPP and its genesis could be seen to symbolise the Bill and the large number of amendments that have been tabled at almost every stage of its passage. In its Commons and Lords stages, the Government have attempted to create on the hoof an elaborate architecture for the fabrication of the funding for investment in London Transport. It beggars belief that, at this stage, Ministers are unable to come to the House and provide detailed figures and the assurances that we need about how the PPP will work in practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said that we are still told by Ministers that we will not know when the PPP is ready: that it will be ready when it is ready and signed when it is signed. That is unsatisfactory both for mayoral candidates and for the House. We are being asked to approve legislation tonight that will establish a procedure whose implications we cannot foresee or understand. Ministers seem unable or unwilling to share with us the Bill's consequences.
We have no information about the PPP's long-term cost to the public purse. Yet that is fundamental to assessing whether the PPP constitutes the right way to proceed. How can we have a serious mayoral debate about investment in London transport when amendment No. 332 and many other provisions in the Bill deny us essential

information about the PPP? I hope that the Government will withdraw the amendment and rethink a structure that would leave Londoners with an unsatisfactory arrangement and cost the taxpayer far more than necessary.

Mr. Hill: The amendment has provoked a wide range of grievances and charges. I shall attempt to deal with them more or less in chronological order.
The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) began by complaining about lack of information on amendments. I acknowledge that there is much to be tackled. However, as the hon. Gentleman should concede, we have been scrupulous in ensuring that the Opposition in another place were sent explanatory notes on all major amendments during the Bill's progress through the House so that they were able to scrutinise them fully. In response to a specific request in the form of a parliamentary question on Monday last week by the hon. Gentleman, we were able to place in the Library on Wednesday explanatory notes on all new clauses and schedules that were added in another place. The explanatory note on amendment No. 332, which has proved so contentious, was available from the Library almost a week ago—in good time for deliberations on it today.
Various points have been made about the proposed London Underground public-private partnership. Let me deal with one of them—safety. I cannot emphasise too strongly that safety is paramount when considering the PPP. We shall take account of any lessons of the Southall and Ladbroke Grove accidents that have implications for the underground. The PPP deal is structured so that public sector London Underground will continue to have responsibility for the statutory railway safety case for the whole underground. The PPP infrastructure companies will take over existing safety cases that are agreed with Her Majesty's railway inspectorate. They form part of London Underground's overall safety case and the PPP companies will be obliged to maintain them. I stress that public sector London Underground Ltd. will have overall responsibility for safety. It will be the guiding mind on safety on the London Underground under the PPP.
There has been some scaremongering about fares from the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. On a point of information, the report that the hon. Gentleman had in mind was not by Deloitte and Touche, as the hon. Gentleman claimed, but by Chantrey Vellacott. That report suggested that the PPP would lead to a 30 per cent. increase in fares. The analysis in the note that Chantrey Vellacott published is flawed.

Mr. Woodward: Of course, I was right: there are two reports. The Chantrey Vellacott report is available to everyone; we have all read it. It claims that tube fares will increase by 30 per cent. under the PPP—the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) claims that the increase will be 40 per cent. The other report analyses the various options for the future of London Underground. It has been on the Secretary of State's desk, but he refuses to make it public because it claims that the PPP proposals are barmy and that the Government should not proceed with them.

Mr. Hill: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that all the reports that claim that there will be vast increases in London Underground fares under the PPP are wrong. I shall explain the reasons briefly.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Mr. Hill: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a second, I shall say a little more about the Chantrey Vellacott report, which has been mentioned in the debate.

Mr. Woodward: We did not ask the Minister to say more about it.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman may not have done so, but one of his sidekicks on the Liberal Democrat Benches asked about it. Therefore, I shall deal with that point first. We shall deal with other reports in due course. There is a fundamental position on fares on London Underground under the PPP, about which I shall speak shortly.
I have not forgotten the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), but I want to comment on the Chantrey Vellacott report first. We do not accept that fares will increase on the scale that Chantrey Vellacott suggested. Its working assumptions were flawed. It is an error to assume that the bulk of initial investment will be financed through borrowing. Neither does Chantrey Vellacott take account of the efficiency savings that will result from London Underground having a stable longterm investment programme. The savings have been variously projected at between 15 and 20 per cent., so they will be substantial.
We have repeatedly stated that we shall award the contracts only if they represent best value. We would not be embarking on a PPP competition if we did not believe that there was a very good chance of achieving best value for the taxpayer.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his patience; I now give way.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to the Minister for his patience, and I appreciate the opportunity to intervene now. Will he assure the House that, when the PPP finally becomes operational, annual fare rises on the London underground will be significantly lower than the inflation-busting increases that Londoners have had to endure since May 1997?

Mr. Hill: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point, because I want to come to precisely that issue. The economic modelling on which the PPP proposals have been based has operated on the assumption that fares would increase by no more than the retail prices index plus 1 per cent. in the next two years, and in line with inflation after that. Therefore, I assure him and the wider public, whom he is attempting to terrify, that there is absolutely no question of significant fare increases under the PPP. It will be funded by the efficiency savings achieved by a long-term stable rolling programme of investment.

Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful that the Minister has tried to reassure the House—I am not sure that he has succeeded—that, once the PPP is in operation, fare increases will not be of the size that we have just

experienced. Is that because there will be many more huge fare increases before the PPP is signed? Is that why there has been such a delay in signing the PPP? Just like the Tories did before rail privatisation, the Government might want to sneak in a few high fare increases.

Mr. Hill: Rather than sitting there preparing his intervention, the hon. Gentleman should have listened more carefully I made it absolutely clear that, in the first two years leading up to the PPP, the assumption in the economic modelling is that fares will not increase by more than the retail prices index plus 1 per cent. There is no question of huge increases leading up to that point. From spring next year and up to the conclusion of the PPP, the mayor will have a stake in the arrangements for the PPP, including those for the fare levels. I am certain that the new mayor of London will not be in the business of encouraging substantial fare increases.
The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) referred to the Deloitte and Touche report and made several accusations. I confirm that we are not aware of any Deloitte and Touche report on the PPP. The hon. Gentleman may be referring to the study that my Department commissioned from PricewaterhouseCoopers, which was concluded last year. We published a summary of it, but we cannot publish it in its entirety because of commercially confidentiality. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that. It certainly did not say that fare increases would result from the PPP.
On the achievability of the PPP, I reiterate what I said in an earlier debate: London Transport announced on 7 October that five consortiums have pre-qualified in the competition for deep tubes and will be invited to tender for the deep tube infrastructure contracts. The invitation to tender was issued on 19 October and bids are due back next March. The House will be pleased to hear that there was a strong field of applications, and that reflects the keen interest for the PPP in the marketplace. It is on stream and will be achieved.

Mr. Redwood: Before the Minister leaves the subject, will he tell the House how much preparations for the PPP have so far cost? What is his estimate of the total cost, including all the expenses of legal and financial advice from inside and outside his Department? Will that be paid for out of the fare box or out of taxation?

Mr. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman has a bit of a cheek in raising that issue. Few of us will forget that the cost of consultancies and preparations for the deeply flawed privatisation of the railways, which broke up our railway system into a hundred pieces, was about…650 million. The last parliamentary answer provided by the Government in response to a question about the cost of the preparations for the PPP stated that they had cost not more than…20 million to date. There is a massive difference between the extortionate costs that the right hon. Gentleman's Government imposed on the taxpayer and the extremely reasonable and cautious attitude adopted by this Government.
Reference was made to negotiations with Railtrack and to the provision of information. I emphasise that amendment No. 332 is not relevant to the negotiations of PPP agreements, including those with Railtrack. It relates


to periodic reviews of contracts after they have been entered into. Information on the negotiation of PPPs will be made available in the normal way to the National Audit Office. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has also made it clear that details of the public sector comparator, another issued raised by Opposition Members, will be published.

Mr. Woodward: If the PPP arbiter wishes to review the terms and conditions of a contract with Railtrack once the mayor is in post, will it be possible to disclose that information and make it public?

Mr. Hill: Yes. New clause 332 restricts the disclosure only of information that is irrelevant to the statutory duties of the arbiter and other statutory bodies listed. That is a reasonable protection to third parties, such as suppliers to PPP companies.

Mr. Brake: Will the Minister clarify at what point he expects the public sector comparator test for the PPP to be complete, what cost he expects to have been incurred at that point and who will pick up the bill should the public sector comparator test reveal that the PPP is not financially viable?

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman raises two issues. I am not able—the hon. Gentleman could not reasonably expect me to be able—to speculate about the final costs of the consultancy and preparatory work for the PPP. No one could do that. I think that I have demonstrated clearly, however, that the Government have adopted an extremely prudent and cautious approach to such costs.
The Government have repeatedly made it clear that we will publish the public sector comparator before the conclusion of the PPP. When that occurs—we presume that it will be in 2001—the hon. Gentleman, other Members and the public will be able to judge on the basis of that test. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that, if the public sector comparator were negative about the PPP, there would be no question of our going forward with it.

Mr. Woodward: rose—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Hill: I see several Members wishing to challenge me on that point, but I saw the hon. Member for Witney first. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Woodward: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. We may wish to divide the House on the amendment, so it must be made crystal clear. Is the Minister saying that amendment No. 332 will not stop the PPP arbiter from obtaining all the background information on the negotiations with Railtrack, the consultation documents and the advice to the Secretary of State, and that that information can be published—yes or no?

Mr. Hill: I shall revert to that. I had intended to go on to the safety issue. Let me deal with that before I deal with the question about the role of the arbiter. [HON. MEMBERS:

"Come on.] It is a matter of good order in responding to the points raised in the debate, as I am sure hon. Members understand.
Let me deal with the issue of whether amendment No. 332 covers disclosure affecting functions relating to the Health and Safety Executive and safety provisions. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman raised the issue. Subsection (2) makes it clear that the provisions of the new clause do not apply
to any disclosure of information which is made"—
I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to subsection (f)—
for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Health and Safety Commission or the Health and Safety Executive of any of its functions under any enactment or of facilitating the carrying out by any enforcing authority, within the meaning of Part I of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, of any function under a relevant statutory provision within the meaning of that Act".
That makes it crystal clear that no matter relating to health and safety on the underground will be subject to any prevention of disclosure under the terms of the Bill.
On the broader issue of freedom of information, I remind the hon. Gentleman that amendment No. 332 provides statutory protection to third parties against disclosure of information collected by the arbiter, except where it is necessary to carry out the specific statutory functions referred to in the clause. It is enforceable by means of a civil injunction.
The hon. Gentleman asked how that was compatible with freedom of information principles. I find that an extraordinary question.

Mr. Redwood: Why?

Mr. Hill: For the simple reason that the provisions are again based on the Railways Act 1993, but again, for reasons of proportionality, provide a civil rather than a criminal sanction. In other words, the legislation introduced by the Conservative Government imposed a criminal sanction for the disclosure of information. The legislation that the present Government are introducing imposes a civil rather than a criminal sanction. The House will recognise where the balance of openness and transparency lies between a criminal sanction for those seeking to disclose information and a civil sanction in that situation.

Mr. Corbyn: I wanted to give my hon. Friend a little time to catch up with the other issues that have been raised. Many people are deeply concerned about the PPP and the possibility that it will fail and that Londoners will be saddled with an expensive bill and large fare rises to pay for it. Will the matter come back before the House before the PPP is signed, or will the mayor to be appointed next year have to implement the deal that has been done? Will the scrutiny of the PPP be for the mayor and the Assembly, or for the House before such a deal is signed?

Mr. Hill: I can reassure my hon. Friend. Of course there will be a report back to the House. It is inconceivable that, the Secretary of State and the House having sanctioned the PPP, the matter should not be brought back in due course to the House of Commons.

Mr. Woodward: As we all know, the Minister is filibustering while he desperately tries to obtain


the answers. Any accusations of filibustering made by the Government will sit uncomfortably in the House. I hope that the Minister has now got the answers. Will he wind up the debate by telling the House whether, when the mayor is in place, if the PPP arbiter wishes, he will be given all the advice behind the commercial dealings currently going on with the Secretary of State and Railtrack? Will that information be made available to the PPP arbiter and will it be made public—yes or no?

Mr. Hill: Not all of it. Despite the hilarity on the Opposition Benches, it is an entirely reasonable proposition that there will be elements of commercial confidentiality, which I clearly recollect the previous Government were only too eager to plead on many occasions. It is not an intrinsically unreasonable principle.
I have already made it clear that amendment No. 332 is not related to the negotiation of contracts and that information on all PPPs will be available to the National Audit Office, which will no doubt wish to scrutinise them.

Mr. Edward Davey: The Minister told the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that there would be a report back to the House before the PPP was signed. Are the Government minded to allow the House to vote on that report, and will it contain details of the negotiations behind the PPP—details that we have not yet seen?

Mr. Hill: That question is a little premature. It will be a matter for the usual channels, but undoubtedly the Secretary of State will wish to report back to the House. With that, I urge the House to support amendment No. 332 and other amendments in this group.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 230 to 238 agreed to.

Clause 148

ADDITION OR VARIATION OF A NETWORK SERVICE

Lords amendment: No. 239, in page 79, line 1, leave out ("local") and insert ("London")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 240 to 267, 273 and 274.

Mr. Hill: This group of amendments provides further safeguards for the interests of holders of, and applicants for, London service permits. They respond to concerns raised in this House at Committee stage.
The amendments also make improvements to consultation procedures for both London bus network services and London permit services.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 240 to 274 agreed to.

Clause 161

POWER OF AUTHORITY TO GIVE GUIDANCE TO THE FRANCHISING DIRECTOR

Lords amendment: No. 275, in page 85, line 3, after ("give") insert ("instructions or")

7 pm

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 276 to 296, 554, 568, 573, 718 and 802.

Mr. Hill: The amendments, which concern railways and trams, deal with services on the national rail network and aspects of Transport for London rail services. They will achieve a number of things, such as giving effect to the undertaking given on Report by my predecessor to introduce measures that will more fully define the relationship between the mayor and the Strategic Rail Authority. That undertaking was generally welcomed by Conservative Members and, indeed, in the other place. The Bill will thus fully provide for the mayor to have a strong voice in rail, while ensuring that that will not detract from the Strategic Rail Authority's overall responsibility for services on the national network.
We have taken a balanced approach which is designed to encourage a constructive relationship. For example, Transport for London and the franchising director will be under a duty to co-operate in the provision of services, and the franchising director will be required to consult the mayor about his plans for London rail fares and services.
The amendments also set out the procedures to be followed for the consideration of proposals to discontinue rail services operated by Transport for London, primarily on the underground. They transfer to the mayor the current responsibility of the Secretary of State to take decisions on proposed discontinuance of services, but otherwise there is no significant alteration. They also provide that London Transport and Transport for London will not be constrained—for example, by the terms of London Transport's exemption from the national licensing and access regulatory regime—from entering into appropriate arrangements to integrate the tube and national rail networks.
The amendments place restrictions on the mayor's ability to franchise or contract out certain train and station-operating functions. The purpose is to ensure that underground trains and stations continue to be operated by a publicly owned, publicly accountable London Underground in line with the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 15 June. Finally, they transfer to the mayor certain responsibilities of the Secretary of State in respect of the docklands light railway and Croydon tramlink, and provide for the continuation of the arrangements for penalty fares on Croydon tramlink.

Mr. Brake: I support the amendments. It was clear at the beginning of the process that there was a major flaw in the Government's proposals: the mayor would have very little say over rail services in London and his ability to give guidance to the franchising director would hardly


be likely to achieve integration of rail, tube and bus services in London. I therefore welcome this slight amendment, which will ensure that the mayor is also able to give instructions.
I hope that there will be co-operation between the mayor and the franchising director and that it will not be necessary to give instructions, but it is important that such a power exists. It will mean that the mayor should be able to have a greater say over the quality of train services in London. Those of us who commute regularly know that every passenger is affected every day by overcrowding, cancellations and dirty trains. I support the change and hope that, as a result of it, the mayor's ability to give instructions to the franchising director will help to achieve the leap to better-quality rail services in London.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I listened to what the Minister said about the effects of the amendments. Those to clause 161 and amendment No. 288 refer to instructions, guidance and consultation in respect of the mayor, the authority and the franchising director, which is all very well. A few minutes ago, the Minister said that they refer in particular to instances in which there might be proposals for discontinuing services. Epping Forest is in Essex, not London. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of my constituents depend on London underground services? The Central line runs out to Chigwell, Loughton, Theydon Bois and even to Epping, but my constituents—

Mr. Raynsford: To Ongar.

Mrs. Laing: From a sedentary position, the Minister says that the Central line runs to Ongar. It no longer does so.

Mr. Woodward: The hon. Gentleman has not been a Minister for long.

Mrs. Laing: I know; he has forgotten about Ongar.
I was given assurances by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—who might become mayor of London herself—when she was a Minister that the track between Epping and Ongar would be protected as railway track. [HON. MEMBERS: "Early pledge."] It was an early pledge, indeed, and I am pleased to put that on the record.
At present, the service runs all the way to Epping, but my constituents in Epping Forest, who are not residents of London, do not have a vote for either the mayor or the authority. Therefore, one could hardly expect either the mayor or members of the Assembly to put the interests of my constituents high on their list of priorities when they consult, or issue instructions or guidance to, the franchising director or deal with any other issue concerning the future of London underground.
London underground is extremely important to my constituents. I consider it to be one of my first duties as Member of Parliament for Epping Forest to protect the future of London underground services to my constituency. Will the Minister guarantee that, in conjunction with all those other people who will be consulted about the interests of the people they represent

in Greater London, I will be consulted and will continue to have the right to speak in the Chamber on behalf of my constituents, who depend utterly on London underground? They will have no voice in the Authority or with the mayor—only with their Member of Parliament. The House must not lose its right to discuss those matters.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on beginning to fly solo, although he seems to hit the odd bit of turbulence when he is forced away from his script. I have noticed that his instructor's hands occasionally twitch back towards the controls, but let us hope the hon. Gentleman gains confidence as time goes on.
Listening to the Minister's introductory comments, one might have thought that the amendments were fairly minor and would have relatively little effect. The reality, of course, is very different, which is a common theme throughout the Bill. According to my analysis, amendments Nos. 288, 289, 290, 291, 294, 295, 296 and 554 all incorporate new clauses to the Bill. That is worth thinking about, at least for a moment, in relation to the helter-skelter way in which we are considering the amendments.

Mr. Redwood: We are not allowed a minute.

Mr. Waterson: As my right hon. Friend says, we are not even allowed a minute. It is worth pointing out that substantial changes are being made by a group of amendments which we have again to debate at great speed.
Clause 161(8) refers to the functions of the authority that are
exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.
There is a lot of confusion in the provisions about the powers of the mayor, and where they finish and those of the Secretary of State or, in due course, the Strategic Rail Authority—start.
Some of the amendments are to include the "instructions", as well as guidance, which are to be given by the mayor to the franchising director. The amendments depend heavily on good will existing between the mayor and the Secretary of State. One could envisage those two being from different political parties, but that would be as nothing compared with the possibility of their being from the same party if the mayor has been elected in spite of his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government—[Interruption.] The Minister for Local Government and the Regions is continuing her running commentary on all Opposition speeches. How paltry our debates would be without her contributions. Clearly, problems will arise because, if the new mayor has had difficulties in being approved as a candidate for the Labour party, or in being elected to the post of mayor, he or she may not be entirely well disposed towards the Secretary of State—whoever that might be.
The amendments seem to face in two directions. They appear—as the Minister would like them to—to beef up the mayor's powers. The Minister echoed the words of Lord Whitty in the other place when he said that the mayor would be a "voice for London". In reality, however, the amendments might bring the mayor into conflict with the Secretary of State. Although the mayor


is supposed to stand up for Londoners—we have heard that theme more than once in this and previous debates—he or she must also deal with the Secretary of State and, in due course, the Strategic Rail Authority. The current Secretary of State has a penchant for rail summits and the like, and seeks to interfere more and more at all levels in the operation of the railways, both within and outside London.
Lord Whitty talked about defining
the relationship between the mayor and the franchising director"—
and, in due course, between the mayor and the proposed Strategic Rail Authority. He said that the Government were
committed to giving the mayor a strong voice in rail, but that the mayor's powers should not detract from the wider strategic responsibilities of the franchising director and the strategic rail authority.
It is difficult to see, where there is also a duty to consult the mayor over proposed changes to service levels and fares, what will happen if the mayor takes a radically different view from that of those other bodies. As Lord Whitty pointed out,
the franchising director will have to implement the mayor's instructions and guidance unless to do so will 'prevent or seriously hinder him' complying with the Secretary of State's guidance.
He then said, no doubt with a straight face:
The amendment preserves that principle but gives the mayor more flexibility".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 1999; Vol. 603, c. 544-55.]
It seems to be left entirely to the franchising director to decide whether what the mayor wants would have an adverse impact on the remainder of the network. That was left in the air in an exchange between Lord Whitty and Baroness Hamwee. It would be interesting to hear whether the Government's thoughts on that point have changed in the interim.
7.15 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) made some excellent points on behalf of her constituents and expressed concern about the closure of services. One of the amendments proposes that the mayor, rather than the Secretary of State, should make decisions on closures, although there will still be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. Although we hear a lot of rhetoric about giving the mayor a voice on subjects such as railways, ultimately, the Secretary of State will retain a lot of power to ensure that the mayor cannot kick over the traces and cause too many difficulties. Those comments apply also to the provisions for penalty fares.
As with other groups of amendments, we should have liked much more time to consider these matters in more detail. A look behind the Minister's introductory remarks, reveals that some of these amendments incorporate fairly complex new clauses into the Bill. Unless the Minister's explanation is superlatively good, I intend to press amendment No. 294 to a vote.

Mr. Hill: May I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for his support on this matter? The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) made an interesting and useful intervention, which permits me to offer her some reassurances about the rights of her constituents who live outside the area

covered by the GLA. Schedule 9 gives Transport for London powers similar to those currently enjoyed by London Transport, under which the latter runs services to destinations outside London. There is no reason why Transport for London should do differently. Moreover, it will be the mayor's duty, under clause 123, to promote services to, from and within London. Similarly, those aggrieved about closures outside London will be able to appeal to the Secretary of State, as at present.
On the representation of people outside London, Transport for London will inform local authorities outside London affected by the proposals of its plans for fares and services. The Assembly will also be required to have regard to the interests of rail users outside London when it makes appointments to the London Transport Users Committee. The mayor will also consult widely on his or her transport strategy.

Mrs. Laing: I sincerely thank the Minister for those straight answers to my questions. Could my constituents have a representative role by being appointed to the consultative committee?

Mr. Hill: My understanding is that they could, bearing in mind that the responsibilities of the LTUC, as it will be called, extend well outside the London area—from Bicester in the north to Gatwick in the south. Thus there will be opportunities for representation on that committee. The LTUC has statutory duties with regard to the representation of rail and other transport users outside as well as within London. It will have a close relationship with the mayor and the Assembly, and it will expect those wider responsibilities to be taken on board by the GLA. The hon. Lady can therefore rest reasonably assured about the future of railway services in her locality.
The hon. Lady also asked whether she would continue to have the right to speak about those matters in this Chamber. Of course she will. However, some 7 million Londoners currently have no right to govern their affairs. Under the GLA, they will have precisely that right, as they elect the mayor and the Assembly.
On the issues raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), I would expect tensions occasionally to arise between the mayor and the Secretary of State. That is the nature of politics, and it would be improper if it were otherwise. What one seeks to do in legislation of this nature is to create a framework for conflict resolution. That, I think, is a fruitful process.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne raised issues relating to the mayor's powers in regard to the franchising director. It is as well to remember that, in all that he or she does, the mayor will be operating with the mandate of many millions of Londoners. That is a powerful basis on which to relate to the railway authorities.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Bill gives the mayor powers to issue instructions and guidance—terminology taken from the Railways Act 1993, introduced by his own Government. However, we also make it perfectly clear that the franchising director, the Secretary of State and the relevant railway bodies will need to have their primary responsibility, the national rail network, firmly before their eyes. If the issues and guidance offered by the mayor seemed to impinge on that, the national interest would—probably rightly—need to prevail.
What we envisage, however, is a positive, constructive and fruitful relationship between the mayor and the railway authorities. We are delighted to commend to the House amendments that meet a widespread demand for the mayor to be given more precise and more effective powers as a strong voice on behalf of railway users, in both London and the surrounding areas.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 276 to 293 agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 294, after clause 166, to insert the following new clause—Restrictions on contracting out certain services—
.—(1) For the purposes of this section, the services which are "reserved services" are those whose provision by a person would involve that person in performing or securing the performance, for the purposes of any TfL passenger rail service, of—

(a) any station-operating function; or
(b) any train-operating function.

(2) Transport for London shall not, without the consent of the Secretary of State, enter into or carry out any agreement under which an outside contractor is to provide or secure the provision of a reserved service for Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London.

(3) Where a company which is a subsidiary of Transport for London provides or is to provide, or secures or is to secure the provision of, a reserved service for Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London, Transport for London shall not, without the consent of the Secretary of State, enter into any transaction or series of transactions the result of which would be that the company

(a) would cease to be a subsidiary of Transport for London; but
(b) would nevertheless provide or continue to provide, or secure or continue to secure the provision of, the reserved service.

(4) Nothing in this section applies in relation to a contract of employment between an individual and Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London.

(5) The Secretary of State may by order provide exceptions from subsection (2) or (3) above.

(6) Any consent of the Secretary of State under this section must be in writing and—

(a) may be given in relation to any particular transaction or description of transactions; and
(b) may be given subject to conditions.

(7) For the purposes of this section—
station-operating function" means any of the following functions—

(a) the sale or collection of tickets at stations;
(b) the inspection of tickets, or the imposing of penalty fares, at or in the vicinity of a station, but otherwise than on a train;
(c) the making of oral public announcements at stations;
(d) the provision of information orally to members of the public at stations, otherwise than by means of public announcements;
(e) any duties of staff employed on platforms at stations;

(f) any duties of staff employed at a place from which the operation of the whole or part of a station is controlled (whether or not the operation of trains is also controlled from that place);
(g) any other function involved in the management or operation of a station;

"train-operating function" means any of the following functions—

(a) the driving of passenger trains otherwise than within a depot;
(b) any duties of guards on passenger trains;
(c) the sale, collection or inspection of tickets, or the imposing of penalty fares, on passenger trains;
(d) the operation of signals for controlling the movement of passenger trains otherwise than within a depot;
(e) the exercise of control over the movement of passenger trains otherwise than within a depot;
(f) any other function involved in the operation of passenger trains otherwise than within a depot.

(8) In this section—

"contract of employment" means any contract of service or apprenticeship;
"outside contractor" means a person other than Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London;
"passenger train" means a train which is being, has just been, or is about to be, used for the provision of a TfL passenger rail service;
"premises" includes any land, building or structure;
"railway" has the meaning given in section 67(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992;
"reserved service" shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1) above;
"station" means any land or other property which consists of premises used as, or for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, a railway passenger station or railway passenger terminal (including any approaches, forecourt, cycle store or car park), whether or not the land or other property is, or the premises are, also used for other purposes;
"TfL passenger rail service" means any public service for the carriage of passengers by railway which is under the control of Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London;
"ticket" includes any other authority to travel or to be present in a part of a station where such an authority is required.

(9) The Secretary of State may by order amend this section for the purpose of varying the meaning in this section of any of the following expressions—

(a) "train-operating function";
(b) "station-operating function";
(c) "outside contractor"; or
(d) "TfL passenger rail service"."

Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Dowd.]

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 158.

Division No. 297]
[7.22 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barnes, Harry


Ainger, Nick
Barron, Kevin


Alexander, Douglas
Bayley, Hugh


Allen, Graham
Beard, Nigel


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Ashton, Joe
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Atkins, Charlotte
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Austin, John
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)






Bennett, Andrew F
Flint, Caroline


Bermingham, Gerald
Flynn, Paul


Berry, Roger
Follett, Barbara


Betts, Clive
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blears, Ms Hazel
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Blizzard, Bob
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Foulkes, George


Borrow, David
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gapes, Mike


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gardiner, Barry


Brinton, Mrs Helen
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gerrard, Neil


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Browne, Desmond
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Buck, Ms Karen
Godman, Dr Norman A


Burgon, Colin
Godsiff, Roger


Butler, Mrs Christine
Goggins, Paul


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caplin, Ivor
Grocott, Bruce


Casale, Roger
Grogan, John


Caton, Martin
Gunnell, John


Chaytor, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Healey, John



Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clwyd, Ann
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vernon
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Coleman, Iain
Hope, Phil


Connarty, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cousins, Jim
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cox, Tom
Hurst, Alan


Cranston, Ross
Hutton, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jenkins, Brian


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Darvill, Keith



Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)



Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Denham, John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Doran, Frank
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dowd, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Drew, David
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kemp, Fraser


Edwards, Huw
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Khabra, Piara S


Etherington, Bill
Kidney, David


Reid, Rt Hon Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fisher, Mark
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kumar, Dr Ashok





Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rowlands, Ted


Laxton, Bob
Roy, Frank


Leslie, Christopher
Ruane, Chris


Levitt, Tom
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Linton, Martin
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Salter, Martin


Lock, David
Sarwar, Mohammad


McAvoy, Thomas
Sawford, Phil


McCabe, Steve
Sedgemore, Brian


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Shaw, Jonathan



Sheerman, Barry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Macdonald, Calum
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McDonnell, John
Singh, Marsha


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Skinner, Dennis


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McNulty, Tony
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mactaggart, Fiona
Squire, Ms Rachel


McWalter, Tony
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McWilliam, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mallaber, Judy
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stringer, Graham


Martlew Eric



Maxton, John
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Meale, Alan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Merron, Gillian
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)



Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Miller, Andrew
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mitchell, Austin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moffatt, Laura
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Timms, Stephen


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Tipping, Paddy


Mountford, Kali
Todd, Mark


Mudie, George
Touhig, Don


Mullin, Chris
Truswell, Paul


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Olner, Bill
Tynan, Bill


O'Neill, Martin
Walley, Ms Joan


Organ, Mrs Diana
Ward, Ms Claire


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Wareing, Robert N


Palmer, Dr Nick
Watts, David


Pearson, Ian
White, Brian


Perham, Ms Linda
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pickthall, Colin
Wicks, Malcolm


Pike, Peter L
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Plaskitt, James



Pope, Greg
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pound, Stephen v
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wills, Michael


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Winnick, David


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Prosser, Gwyn
Wise, Audrey


Purchase, Ken
Wood, Mike


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Woolas, Phil


Quinn, Lawrie
Worthington, Tony


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Rammell, Bill
Wyatt, Derek


Rapson, Syd



Raynsford, Nick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Mr. David Clelland and


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.






NOES


Allan, Richard
Hunter, Andrew


Amess, David
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Jenkin, Bernard


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Keetch, Paul


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Key, Robert


Baldry, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bercow, John
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Beresford, Sir Paul
Kirkwood, Archy


Blunt, Crispin
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Boswell, Tim
Lansley, Andrew


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Leigh, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lidington, David


Brady, Graham
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Brake, Tom
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Brazier, Julian
Llwyd, Elfyn


Breed, Colin
Loughton, Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Luff, Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Burns, Simon
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Burstow, Paul
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Butterfill, John
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cable, Dr Vincent
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
McLoughlin, Patrick



Madel, Sir David


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Malins, Humfrey



Maples, John


Chidgey, David
Mates, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clappison, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
May, Mrs Theresa


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Moss, Malcolm



Nicholls, Patrick


Collins, Tim
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Colvin, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Page, Richard


Cotter, Brian
Paice, James


Cran, James
Paterson, Owen


Curry, Rt Hon David
Pickles, Eric


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Prior, David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Randall, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Redwood, Rt Hon John



Rendel, David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Robathan, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Robertson, Laurence


Duncan Smith, Iain
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Evans, Nigel
Ruffley, David


Faber, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Fabricant, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Fallon, Michael
Sanders, Adrian


Fearn, Ronnie
Sayeed, Jonathan


Flight, Howard
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Shepherd, Richard


Foster, Don (Bath)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fox, Dr Liam
Soames, Nicholas


Fraser, Christopher
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gale, Roger
Spring, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gibb, Nick
Streeter, Gary


Gill, Christopher
Stunell, Andrew


Gray, James
Swayne, Desmond


Green, Damian
Syms, Robert


Greenway, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hancock, Mike
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hawkins, Nick
Townend, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tredinnick, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tyrie, Andrew


Horam, John
Viggers, Peter


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wardle, Charles


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Waterson, Nigel





Wells, Bowen
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Woodward, Shaun


Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Willis, Phil
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Wilshire, David
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 295 to 331 agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 332, after clause 188, to insert the following new clause—Restrictions on disclosure of information—
.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, no information with respect to any particular business which—

(a) has been obtained by the PPP arbiter under or by virtue of any of the provisions of this Chapter, and
(b) relates to the affairs of any individual or to any particular business,

shall, during the lifetime of that individual or so long as that business continues to be carried on, be disclosed without the consent of that individual or the person for the time being carrying on that business.

(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to any disclosure of information which is made—

(a) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Secretary of State, the Mayor of London, Transport for London or the PPP arbiter of any of his or, as the case may be, its functions under this Act;
(b) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Secretary of State, the Rail Regulator, the Franchising Director, the Competition Commission or the Mayor of any of his or, as the case may be, its functions under the Railways Act 1993;
(c) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by—

(i) any Minister of the Crown,
(ii) the Director General of Fair Trading,
(iii) the Competition Commission,
(iv) the Director General of Telecommunications,
(v) the Director General of Gas Supply,
(vi) the Director General of Water Supply,
(vii) the Director General of Electricity Supply,
(viii) the Civil Aviation Authority,
(ix) the Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal, or
(x) a local weights and measures authority in Great Britain,

of any of his or, as the case may be, its functions under any of the enactments or instruments specified in subsection (3) below;
(d) for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Secretary of State or the Treasury to exercise any powers conferred by the Financial Services Act 1986 or by the enactments relating to companies, insurance companies or insolvency or for the purpose of enabling or assisting any inspector appointed under the enactments relating to companies to carry out his functions;
(e) for the purpose of enabling or assisting an official receiver to carry out his functions under the enactments relating to insolvency or for the purpose of enabling or assisting a recognised professional body for the purposes of section 391 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to carry out its functions as such;
(f) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Health and Safety Commission or the Health and Safety Executive of any of its functions under any enactment


or of facilitating the carrying out by any enforcing authority, within the meaning of Part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, of any functions under a relevant statutory provision, within the meaning of that Act;
(g) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Comptroller and Auditor General of any of his functions under any enactment;
(h) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the International Rail Regulator of any of his functions under any subordinate legislation made for the purpose of implementing—

(i) the Directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 29th July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways; or
(ii) Council Directive 95/19/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the charging of infrastructure fees;

(j) in connection with the investigation of any criminal offence or for the purposes of any criminal proceedings;
(k) for the purposes of any civil proceedings brought under or by virtue of this Act or any of the enactments or instruments specified in subsection (3) below; or
(l) in pursuance of a Community obligation.

(3) The enactments and instruments referred to in subsection (2) above are—

(a) the Trade Descriptions Act 1968;
(b) the Fair Trading Act 1973;
(c) the Consumer Credit Act 1974;
(d) the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976;
(e) the Resale Prices Act 1976;
(f) the Estate Agents Act 1979;
(g) the Competition Act 1980;
(h) the Telecommunications Act 1984;
(j) the Airports Act 1986;
(k) the Gas Act 1986;
(l) the Insolvency Act 1986;
(m) the Consumer Protection Act 1987;
(n) the Electricity Act 1989;
(o) the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991;
(p) the Water Industry Act 1991;
(q) the Water Resources Act 1991;
(r) the Railways Act 1993;
(s) any subordinate legislation made for the purpose of securing compliance with the Directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 10th September 1984 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member States concerning misleading advertising.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order provide that subsections (2) and (3) above shall have effect subject to such modifications as are specified in the order.

(5) The prohibition imposed by subsection (1) above shall be enforceable by civil proceedings—

(a) by the individual mentioned in that subsection, or
(b) by the person for the time being carrying on the business there mentioned,

for an injunction or for any other appropriate relief or remedy.

(6) In this section "the Franchising Director" means the Director General of Passenger Rail Franchising."

Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Dowd.]

The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 156.

Division No. 298]
[7.36 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Ainger, Nick
Dalyell, Tam


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Darvill, Keith


Alexander, Douglas
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Terty (B'ham Hodge H)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dean, Mrs Janet


Atkins, Charlotte
Denham, John


Austin, John
Dobbin, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Donohoe, Brian H


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Bayley, Hugh
Dowd, Jim


Beard, Nigel
Drew, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Edwards, Huw


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Etherington, Bill


Bennett, Andrew F
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Berry, Roger
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Betts, Clive
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Blears, Ms Hazel
Flint, Caroline


Blizzard, Bob
Flynn, Paul


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Follett, Barbara


Borrow, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gapes, Mike


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gardiner, Barry


Browne, Desmond
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Buck, Ms Karen
Gerrard, Neil


Burgon, Colin
Gibson, Dr Ian


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caton, Martin
Grocott, Bruce


Chaytor, David
Grogan, John


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)



Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Healey, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clelland, David
Heppell, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hesford, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hill, Keith


Cohen, Harry
Hinchliffe, David


Coleman, Iain
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Connarty, Michael
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
Hope, Phil


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corston, Jean
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hurst, Alan


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Illsley, Eric






Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jenkins, Brian
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pearson, Ian



Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Plaskitt, James



Pope, Greg


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prosser, Gwyn


Keeble, Ms Sally
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Quinn, Lawrie


Kemp, Fraser
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rammell, Bill


Khabra, Piara S
Rapson, Syd


Kidney, David
Raynsford, Nick


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rogers, Allan


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rowlands, Ted


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Roy, Frank


Laxton, Bob
Ruane, Chris


Leslie, Christopher
Ruddock, Joan


Levitt, Tom
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Linton, Martin
Salter, Martin


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lock, David
Savidge, Malcolm


McAvoy, Thomas
Sawford, Phil


McCabe, Steve
Sedgemore, Brian


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Shaw, Jonathan



Sheerman, Barry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Macdonald, Calum
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McDonnell, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McIsaac, Shona
Singh, Marsha


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Skinner, Dennis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McWalter, Tony
Southworth, Ms Helen


McWilliam, John
Spellar, John


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mallaber, Judy
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stinchcombe, Paul


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Maxton, John
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Meale, Alan
Stringer, Graham


Merron, Gillian
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Miller, Andrew



Mitchell, Austin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Moffatt, Laura
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moran, Ms Margaret
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mountford, Kali
Timms, Stephen


Mudie, George
Tipping, Paddy


Mullin, Chris
Todd, Mark


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Touhig, Don


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Truswell, Paul


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Olner, Bill
Twigg, Derek (Halton)





Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wills, Michael


Tynan, Bill
Winnick, David


Walley, Ms Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ward, Ms Claire
Wise, Audrey


Wareing, Robert N
Wood, Mike


Watts, David
Woolas, Phil


White, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wright Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wicks, Malcolm
Wyatt, Derek


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)




Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Mrs. Anne McGuire.


NOES


Allan, Richard
Green, Damian


Amess, David
Greenway, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Grieve, Dominic


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hammond, Philip


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hancock, Mike


Baldry, Tony
Hawkins, Nick


Bercow, John
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Blunt, Crispin
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Horam, John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Brady, Graham
Hunter, Andrew


Brake, Tom
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brazier, Julian
Jenkin, Bernard


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Keetch, Paul


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Key, Robert


Burns, Simon
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Burstow, Paul
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Butterfill, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Cable, Dr Vincent
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lidington, David



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Chidgey, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Chope, Christopher
Llwyd, Elfyn


Clappison, James
Loughton, Tim


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Luff, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas



MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Collins, Tim
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Colvin, Michael
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cotter, Brian
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Cran, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Madel, Sir David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Malins, Humfrey


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maples, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Mates, Michael



Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Duncan, Alan
May, Mrs Theresa


Duncan Smith, Iain
Moss, Malcolm


Evans, Nigel
Nicholls, Patrick


Faber, David
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fabricant, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Fearn, Ronnie
Paice, James


Flight, Howard
Paterson, Owen


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Pickles, Eric


Foster, Don (Bath)
Randall, John


Fox, Dr Liam
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fraser, Christopher
Rendel, David


Gale, Roger
Robathan, Andrew


Garnier, Edward
Robertson, Laurence


Gibb, Nick
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gill, Christopher
Ruffley, David


Gray, James
Russell, Bob (Colchester)






St Aubyn, Nick
Trend, Michael


Sanders, Adrian
Tyrie, Andrew


Sayeed, Jonathan
Viggers, Peter


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wardle, Charles


Shepherd, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wells, Bowen


Soames, Nicholas
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Whittingdale, John


Spring, Richard
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Streeter, Gary
Willetts, David


Stunell, Andrew
Willis, Phil


Swayne, Desmond
Wilshire, David


Syms, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Woodward, Shaun


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Taylor, Sir Teddy
Tellers for the Noes:


Townend, John
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 333 to 336 agreed to.

Clause 193

TRAVEL CONCESSIONS ON JOURNEYS IN AND AROUND GREATER LONDON

Lords amendment: No. 337, in page 104, line 21, after (" 233") insert ("or 324")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 339, 561, 708 to 711, 713, 716 and 719.

Mr. Hill: The Government understand that the London concessionary fares scheme is much valued by elderly and disabled Londoners. That is why we are firmly committed to ensuring that users of the scheme can continue to enjoy its travel benefits. The Bill makes provision for those travel concessions to continue on services that will transfer from the control of London Transport to Transport for London.
We have given careful consideration to a number of proposals for improvements to the scheme. As a result, we have amended the Bill to update the scheme and to help maintain its stability. For the statutory reserve scheme, the start and finish times will be brought into line with those currently in the voluntary scheme, and arrangements for determining the costs of the reserve scheme will be clarified. We have also given the boroughs powers to set up a statutory joint committee dealing with concessionary fares, which will have the option of taking decisions on the basis of qualified majority voting.
The amendments will bring up to date the concessionary fares provisions first enacted in 1984. They will increase the stability of the scheme by making it easier for the boroughs to reach agreement every year. They will also provide further reassurance to users that concessions will continue to be provided. These amendments have the support of the Association of London Government and users' groups, and were welcomed in the other place.
On penalty fares, the Government have noted the views of Members of both Houses—expressed both during the passage of this Bill and when writing on behalf of constituents—about the operation of London Transport's penalty fares scheme. We are, of course, also aware of the considerable public interest in the subject.
Lords amendment No. 719 requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish an independent penalty fares appeal body, if he is requested to do so by the mayor. We think it likely that, once the mayor has taken stock of the penalty fares procedures, he or she will make such a request. We should not, however, wish to prejudge the mayor's consideration of the issue, particularly in the light of the reforms that London Transport has established after its review of tube penalty fares. We think that the mayor will want to see how those reforms bed down before deciding to invoke the powers in the amendment.
The amendment also gives a general indication of the ground that the regulations may cover. If the mayor were to request the Secretary of State to make such regulations, we would expect there to be close consultation between the mayor, the Secretary of State and other interested parties before the regulations were drawn up.

Mr. Burstow: I should like to speak briefly to the amendments dealing with the concessionary fares issue, which concerned hon. Members greatly in our earlier consideration of the Bill. I also want to express our appreciation of the fact that the Government have at last listened to the representations made not only by hon. Members both here and in the other place, but by the many thousands of people across London who asked the Government to think again about the way in which the Bill would have put at risk the future of the London concessionary fares scheme.
I know from my own constituency case load that some of my constituents, particularly those involved in a seniors' forum in my constituency, were most anxious that the provisions should be included in the Bill. I know that they are pleased to note that the scheme is secure, and look forward to seeing it continue well into the future.

Mr. Hill: I express my gratitude for the hon. Gentleman's warm words. We regard inclusion of the provisions as an example of consensual government that should be a model for the way in which the Greater London Authority conducts its business.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 338 and 339 agreed to.

Clause 199

THE LONDON TRANSPORT USERS' COMMITTEE

Lords amendment: No. 340, in page 106, line 29, after ("body") insert ("corporate")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 341 to 345, 347 to 353, 720 to 724 and 803.

Mr. Hill: These are new and exciting times for users of transport services in London, and we believe that, with its


wider remit, the London Transport Users Committee will successfully build on the best traditions of the London Regional Passengers Committee. As part of the new democratic structures for London, it will ensure that the user's voice is clearly heard when the mayor and Assembly consider transport provision in the capital.
The amendments are essentially technical ones, filling out the LTUC remit and more clearly defining its relationship with the assembly. The amendments also reflect the careful consideration that we have given to some of the points raised by peers of all parties during the Bill's consideration in the other place. Lords amendment No. 341, for example, deals with the concerns of Liberal Democrat Members, both in this place—in particular the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)—and in the other place—in particular Baroness Thomas of Walliswood and Baroness Hamwee—of ensuring that the committee is properly representative of the wider community of rail users in the area for which the LTUC is a rail user consultative committee. Similarly, Lord Dixon-Smith and Baroness Miller sought assurances on audit and account, which we have provided for in Lords amendment No. 721.
7.45 pm
The amendments also include our proposals for the Assembly to issue guidance and directions to the LTUC and to establish firmly the new relationship between the Assembly and the committee.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment Nos. 341 to 353 agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 354, after clause 205, to insert the following new clause—Provision of facilities to benefit users of waterways—

CHAPTER XA— WATER TRANSPORT

.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, Transport for London may provide or secure the provision of such amenities and facilities as it considers would benefit persons using any waterway.

(2) Before commencing any works for the purposes of exercising the powers under subsection (1) above, Transport for London shall—

(a) comply with any requirement in an enactment to obtain a licence or consent in respect of the works, or
(b) if there is no such requirement, obtain the consent to the works of any person who is under a duty to maintain the waterway to which they relate.")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 355, 356 and 697.

Mr. Hill: This group of amendments deals with rivers and waterways. Lords amendment No. 354 gives Transport for London power to provide amenities and facilities on the Thames and other waterways in London. Lords amendment No. 355 transfers responsibility for the

operation of the Woolwich ferry. Lords amendment No. 356 ensures that there is no doubt about the validity of transfers of property, rights and liabilities that are transferred to London Regional Transport between 31 March 1999 and the coming into force of this clause, or that are subject to transfer agreements made during that period. Lords amendment No. 697 provides Transport for London with a power to make byelaws about piers that it owns or operates.
There was considerable debate in another place on some of the amendments in this group. In the light of concerns expressed by the Port of London authority and British Waterways, the clauses were further amended in another place. Therefore, Lords amendment No. 354 clarifies that Transport for London must obtain any necessary consents or licences before commencing works on waterway amenities or facilities, and Lords amendment No. 697 ensures that TfL byelaws for landing places do not conflict or interfere with certain byelaws made by the Port of London authority.
Tourism and the river have been a subject of concern to Members in both Houses. The Government, of course, recognise the importance of tourism to river services. However, we have taken note of the concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members in this and the other place on behalf of a particular operator.
The Government's proposals for the mayor and TfL envisage an integrated approach to the use of the river, which is not limited purely to public passenger transport. The mayor will be responsible for promoting both public transport and tourism. Ahead of the provisions coming into effect, the Government expect London River Services—as a predecessor body to TfL—to work in a similar manner. We have every confidence that it is doing just that. The Government have listened to the concerns that have been expressed—which is why my noble Friend Lord Whitty recently undertook that we would write to the chairman of London River Services to reiterate the point. We shall be doing so shortly.
I hope that that further explanation will reassure hon. Members that the interests of tourism on the river are fully recognised in the Bill's provisions and in the interim period before TfL is established.

Mr. Brooke: The alliance to which the Minister referred consists of the hon. Members for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and me. We discussed the matter in Committee, but did so before some of the developments had occurred. There is no possibility that I shall be able today to do justice to the subject, and I can only plead—through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and given the fact that it is an all-party coalition—that Madam Speaker might be prepared to contemplate granting an Adjournment debate on the subject early in the next Session.
The Minister—whom I acknowledge knows about the issues—said that Lord Whitty will be writing to the chairman of London River Services. Although that calmed nerves in their Lordships' House, I should myself feel much better if he included in the letter an expectation, first, that London River Services will appoint a director with experience of and responsibility for tourism, and secondly, that an independent study will be made of the current impact of the introduction of transport services on current tourism services, so that both perspectives could be understood and viewed in a more balanced manner.

8 pm

Mr. Hill: I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's observations, and look forward to further exchanges in the Chamber on that subject.

It being Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Order this day.

Lords amendment agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.

Lords amendments No. 419 and Government amendment (a) thereto and No. 793 and Government amendments (a) to (f) thereto agreed to.

Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the remaining Lords amendments:—

The House divided: Ayes 347, Noes 133.

Division No. 299]
[8.2 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Casale, Roger


Ainger, Nick
Caton, Martin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chaytor, David


Alexander, Douglas
Chidgey, David


Allan, Richard
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ashton, Joe



Atherton, Ms Candy
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Austin, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bayley, Hugh
Clelland, David


Beard, Nigel
Clwyd, Ann


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coaker, Vernon


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cohen, Harry


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Coleman, Iain


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Connarty, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cooper, Yvette


Berry, Roger
Corbett, Robin


Betts, Clive
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blears, Ms Hazel
Corston, Jean


Blizzard, Bob
Cotter, Brian


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cousins, Jim


Borrow, David
Cox, Tom


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cranston, Ross


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Brake, Tom
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Brand, Dr Peter
Cummings, John


Breed, Colin
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dalyell, Tam


Browne, Desmond
Darvill, Keith


Buck, Ms Karen
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Burden, Richard
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Burgon, Colin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Burstow, Paul
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dean, Mrs Janet


Cable, Dr Vincent
Denham, John


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Doran, Frank



Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Drew, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Caplin, Ivor
Edwards, Huw





Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Etherington, Bill
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fearn, Ronnie
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Keetch, Paul


Fisher, Mark
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Fizpatrick, Jim
Kemp, Fraser


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Flint, Caroline
Khabra, Piara S


Flynn, Paul
Kidney, David


Follett, Barbara
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Foster, Don (Bath)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kirkwood, Archy


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fyfe, Maria
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gapes, Mike
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Gardiner, Barry
Laxton, Bob


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Leslie, Christopher


Gerard, Neil
Levitt, Tom


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Linton, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman A
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Godsiff, Roger
Llwyd, Elfyn


Goggins, Paul
Lock, David


Golding, Mrs Llin
McAvoy, Thomas


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McCabe, Steve


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Grocott, Bruce
McDonagh, Siobhain


Grogan, John
Macdonald, Calum


Gunnell, John
McDonnell, John


Hain, Peter
McIsaac, Shona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hancock, Mike
McNulty, Tony


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mactaggart Fiona


Healey, John
McWalter, Tony


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
McWilliam, John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mallaber, Judy


Hepburn, Stephen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Heppell, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hill, Keith
Martlew, Eric


Hinchliffe, David
Maxton, John


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Meale, Alan


Hood, Jimmy
Merron, Gillian


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hope, Phil
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hopkins, Kelvin
Miller, Andrew


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mitchell, Austin


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mountford, Kali


Hurst, Alan
Mudie, George


Hutton, John
Mullin, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jenkins, Brian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



Olner, Bill


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Plaskitt, James


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pond, Chris






Pope, Greg
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pound, Stephen
Stringer, Graham


Powell, Sir Raymond
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stunell, Andrew


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rammell, Bill
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rapson, Syd
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Raynsford, Nick
Timms, Stephen


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Tipping, Paddy


Rendel, David
Todd, Mark


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Touhig, Don


Rogers, Allan
Truswell, Paul


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Roy, Frank
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ruane, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ruddock, Joan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tynan, Bill


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Walley, Ms Joan


Ryan, Ms Joan
Ward, Ms Claire


Salter, Martin
Wareing, Robert N


Sanders, Adrian
Watts, David


Sarwar, Mohammad
Webb, Steve


Savidge, Malcolm
White, Brian


Sawford, Phil
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sedgemore, Brian
Wicks, Malcolm


Shaw, Jonathan
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



Short, Rt Hon Clare
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Singh, Marsha
Willis, Phil


Skinner, Dennis
Wills, Michael


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Winnick, David


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wise, Audrey


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wood, Mike


Spellar, John
Woolas, Phil


Squire, Ms Rachel
Worthington, Tony


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wyatt, Derek


Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stinchcombe, Paul
Mr. David Jamieson and


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mrs. Anne McGuire.


NOES


Amess, David
Chope, Christopher


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clappison, James


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)



Baldry, Tony
Collins, Tim


Bercow, John
Colvin, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Blunt, Crispin
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Brady, Graham



Brazier, Julian
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan, Alan


Browning, Mrs Angela
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, Nigel


Burns, Simon
Faber, David


Butterfill, John
Fabricant, Michael


Cash, William
Fallon, Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Flight, Howard



Forth, Rt Hon Eric





Fox, Dr Liam
Page, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Paice, James


Gale, Roger
Paterson, Owen


Garnier, Edward
Pickles, Eric


Gibb, Nick
Prior, David


Gill, Christopher
Randall, John


Gray, James
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Green, Damian
Robathan, Andrew


Greenway, John
Robertson, Laurence


Grieve, Dominic
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Ruffley, David


Hammond, Philip
St Aubyn, Nick


Hawkins, Nick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hayes, John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Shepherd, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Horam, John
Soames, Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Spring, Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Key, Robert
Streeter, Gary


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Swayne, Desmond


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Syms, Robert


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lidington, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Townend, John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tredinnick, David


Loughton, Tim
Trend, Michael


Luff, Peter
Tyrie, Andrew


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wardle, Charles


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Waterson, Nigel


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Wells, Bowen


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


McLoughlin, Patrick
Whittingdale, John


Madel, Sir David
Wilkinson, John


Malins, Humfrey
Willetts, David


Maples, John
Wilshire, David


Mates, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Woodward, Shaun


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Yeo, Tim


May, Mrs Theresa
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Moss, Malcolm



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments agreed to.

Consequential Government amendment agreed to.

Clause 243

ESTABLISHMENT, MEMBERSHIP AND DUTY TO MAINTAIN POLICE FORCE

Lords amendment: No. 426, in page 133, leave out lines 24 to 29 and insert—
("(c) the person or body responsible for the appointment of members of the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority under regulations made under section 30B of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (which, by virtue of paragraph 5(b) of Schedule 2A to this Act, appoints magistrates to be members of the Metropolitan Police Authority).")

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 745 to 758 and 779 to 781.

Mr. Raynsford: All the amendments in this group are connected with the membership of the Metropolitan police authority. They fall into three categories which I will address in turn—magistrate members of the MPA, the position of the deputy mayor on the MPA and the upper age limit of MPA members.
Amendment No. 426 heads a set of seven amendments which deal with the appointment of magistrate members of the Metropolitan police authority. Now that the Access to Justice Act 1999 has been passed, we need to make a number of changes to reflect the new arrangements that will apply to the administration of magistrates courts in London.
Amendment No. 748 is the key amendment. It will substitute new arrangements for the appointment of the four magistrate members of the MPA. Paragraph 5 of schedule 21 to the Bill, as introduced in the other place, provided that the appointments would be made by a joint committee of the selection panels for the magistrates courts committees within the Metropolitan police district. There are 21 such selection panels, so it would be quite a task for them to join together to form a single panel to make the appointments.
As the House will be aware, the Access to Justice Act 1999 establishes a new Londonwide body called the Greater London magistrates courts authority. That body will replace the existing magistrates courts committees in London, which will in turn mean the disappearance of the MCC selection panels.
The GLMCA will not assume its full powers until April 2001, but work is already under way in relation to the appointment of its members. A selection panel is to be set up for that purpose around the turn of the year, and we think that that panel would be the ideal body to make the four magistrate appointments to the MPA. This is what Amendment No. 748 will achieve.
Amendment No. 426 is consequential. It provides that the body or person who makes appointments to the GLMCA—the selection panel to which I have just referred—must be consulted by the Secretary of State when he is considering reducing the number of MPA members. That will replace the current provision in the Bill whereby it is the MCC selection panels that must be consulted. Amendments Nos. 747, 753, 756, 757 and 758 make further changes consequent on the passage of the Access to Justice Act 1999.
Amendments Nos. 745 and 755 clarify a couple of matters regarding the position of the deputy mayor on the Metropolitan police authority. Amendment No. 755 provides that the deputy mayor will cease to be a member of the MPA if he or she ceases to be deputy mayor. The Bill already makes specific provision as to what should happen when the deputy mayor acts as the mayor, and in such cases he or she will sometimes be required to step down temporarily from the MPA.
The Bill as introduced into the other place was silent, however, on what should happen if the deputy mayor ceased to be the deputy—for example, following a resignation. Amendment No. 755 will rectify that position. As the deputy has his or her place by virtue of that office, we think it right that that individual should be required to step down as a member of the MPA on losing that office. Equally, provided that he or she remains an Assembly member, there is no reason why he or she should not remain eligible for reappointment to the MPA in his or her capacity as an Assembly member. That will be possible by virtue of paragraph 18 of schedule 21.
Amendment No. 745 makes it clear that the deputy mayor will be subject to the disqualification criteria for MPA membership as set out in paragraph 8 of schedule 21. Those provisions cover standard disqualification issues such as bankruptcy and criminal convictions, and are very similar to those which the Bill applies to Assembly members, and hence to the deputy mayor.
8.15 pm
The third set of amendments will remove the upper age limit to membership of the Metropolitan police authority. The Bill as introduced into the other place barred those aged 70 and over from being MPA members. The origin of that age limit, which applies to all police authorities, seems to be linked to the position of magistrates. Since magistrates have to retire at 70, magistrate members of police authorities have to resign on reaching that age. The reasoning appears to have been that equality of misery should be applied to other police authority members.
The Bill had echoed the position in other police authorities, in line with our general approach that the structures and functions of the MPA should, as far as possible, be the same as those of authorities outside London. However, on reconsideration, it seemed wrong to exclude from police authority membership perfectly able people of advancing years. Amendment No. 749 therefore removes the upper age limit for MPA members. The Government will bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity to remove the upper age limit for other police authorities in England and Wales.
The other amendments in this group are consequential on amendment No. 749. They amend or remove references elsewhere in schedule 21 and also in schedule 3, to the Police Act 1996 as amended by schedule 2 of the Bill, which relate to the age limit of MPA membership or membership of the MPA independent member selection panel.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the proposals regarding membership of the MPA and the age limits involved. However, a question arises that I ask in ignorance as I do not know the answer. Will it be possible for the new Metropolitan police authority, whose democratisation we welcome, to change the age limits for officers in the police service? I will quite understand if the Minister cannot answer me now, but the new MPA is to be slightly different from other police authorities in the country. How much autonomy will it have over the management of its service, and to what extent will it be governed by the legislation covering the other police services in England and Wales?
It would be wonderful—and more than I expect—if the Minister could give me an answer now. An answer later is what I expect, but in any event I hope that I get one.

Mr. Raynsford: I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, as I cannot give him an answer now. However, I undertake to write to him with the information that he seeks. I reiterate that the change that the Bill makes with regard to the Metropolitan police authority will be followed by legislation applying to other police authorities elsewhere in the country to remove the upper age limit.

Lords amendment agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 427, after clause 253, to insert the following new clause—Continuation in post of current Commissioners and Commanders—

(".—(1) Any appointment of a person as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under section 1 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1829 which is in force immediately before the coming into force of section 248 above shall have effect as from the coming into force of that section as the appointment of that person as the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under and in accordance with section 9B of the Police Act 1996.
(2) If, immediately before the coming into force of section 250 above, there is in force in respect of a person who is one of the Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis an authorisation under section 8 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1856 (authorisation of one of the Assistant Commissioners to act as Commissioner in case of vacancy, illness or absence) that person shall be taken, as from the coming into force of section 250 above, to have been appointed as the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under and in accordance with section 9D of the Police Act 1996.
(3) Any appointment of a person (other than a person in relation to whom subsection (2) above has effect) as an Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under section 2 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1856 which is in force immediately before the coming into force of section 252 above shall have effect as from the coming into force of that section as the appointment of that person as an Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis under and in accordance with section 9F of the Police Act 1996.
(4) Any appointment of a person as a Commander in the metropolitan police force which is in force immediately before the coming into force of section 253 above shall have effect as from the coming into force of that section as the appointment of that person as a Commander under and in accordance with section 9G of the Police Act 1996.")

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 428, 429, 535, 584, 585, 759 to 776, 782 to 785, 796 to 798 and 808 to 819.

Mr. Raynsford: As the House will be aware, this group of amendments covers four separate areas. I beg the House's indulgence to take a little time to explain their significance.
The four areas covered are: senior ranks of the Metropolitan police; the secondment of Met officers to county forces affected by changes to the boundary of the Metropolitan police district; pensions of civilian staff of the Met; and consequential amendments to various statutes. I shall take each set of amendments in turn.
Amendments Nos. 427 and 428 are concerned with the ranks of the Metropolitan police force. Amendment No. 427 inserts a new clause which makes transitional provision in respect of those individuals in one of the four senior ranks of the Metropolitan police—commissioner, deputy commissioner, assistant commissioner or commander—on the date when the new provisions applying to the appointment of those ranks come into force. That date will be the 3 July 2000. The new clause provides that those individuals will be deemed to have been appointed under the new arrangements inserted into the Police Act 1996 by the Bill, rather than under the various Acts covering the Metropolitan police, under which they would originally have been appointed.
Amendment No. 428 clarifies the wording in new section 9H of the 1996 Act, which sets out the ranks that may be held in the Metropolitan police. These are the four senior ranks to which I have already referred, and the ranks of superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable.
The wording of the Bill as introduced into another place might have been regarded as being ambiguous about whether the four senior ranks are indeed to be regarded as ranks of the Metropolitan police force. It is the intention that they should be treated as ranks and accordingly subject to regulations made under section 50 of the 1996 Act. The amended wording puts the matter beyond doubt.
The next amendment, No. 429, deals with the secondment of Met officers. The new clause inserted by the amendment gives power to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to provide police officers to the county police forces of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. Those three forces will have the area that they police enlarged on 1 April 2000, when the boundaries of the Metropolitan police district are reduced to bring them into line with the outer boundary of Greater London. Changes to these boundaries are provided for by clause 255 of the Bill.
In order to police their enlarged areas, Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey will need additional officers. It is of paramount importance that there is a seamless transfer of responsibilities between the Met and the county forces on 1 April 2000, so that the public do not suffer any loss of service during the handover period.
The new clause will enable Met officers to be loaned to the county forces for a period of time which we would expect to be between six months and two years. During that period, they will retain the pay and allowances of a Metropolitan police officer, but will be under the direction and control of the chief constable of the force to which they have been seconded. At the conclusion of the secondment period, the officers would return to the Met.
The third set of amendments is concerned with pensions. As the House will know, we wish to ensure that the organisational changes that we are introducing to London do not adversely affect the terms and conditions of the staff involved. That extends to their pension rights.
Amendment No. 763, which is introduced by amendment No. 762, makes changes to section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967, which governs the payment of pensions to the civil staff of the Metropolitan police. These staff are on the Metropolitan civil staff superannuation scheme, which is analogous to the principal civil service pension scheme. This means that such staff receive the same benefits as civil servants.
Amendment No. 763 supersedes the minor amendments to section 15 of the 1967 Act, which schedule 22 to the Bill already provides. It has a number of features. First, it amends the definition of who is a member of the Metropolitan civil staffs—that is, the definition of those staff who are members of the MCSSS. At present, there are two categories within this definition. One group is staff employed under the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, or the receiver. The other category is made up of justices clerks in inner London. The latter category is not changed by the amendment, but the first is changed to staff who are employed by the Metropolitan police authority. This reflects the fact that the MPA will become the employer of Met staff on 3 July 2000.
Secondly, the amendment preserves entitlements to benefits accrued under the MCSSS scheme by staff who are not current employees on 3 July 2000, and who are not therefore within this definition.
Thirdly, the amendment provides for circumstances in which staff currently on the MCSSS—or who have built up entitlements under that scheme—might move on to another pension scheme. These are set out in sub-paragraph (2D) for post-July 2000 members of the MCSSS and in sub-paragraph (9) for former members of the MCSSS who have benefit entitlements.
Amendment No. 535 inserts an extra provision into clause 322, which requires that the Secretary of State must consult with the MPA and obtain the consent of the Minister with responsibility for the civil service before making an order under that section relating to pension transfers of MPA employees. The likely purpose of any such order would be to place those employees on to the PCSPS. As I have already mentioned, clause 309 includes the MPA among the list of bodies covered by section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972.
Hon. Members will be extremely relieved to know that I come now to the final set of amendments, which make various consequential changes to legislation dating back to the last century. Schedule 22 already makes numerous such changes, which are required to reflect the creation of the Metropolitan police authority and the eventual abolition of the office of receiver. The amendments add a few more to that list and to the repeal schedule—schedule 27. They apply various provisions to the MPA to bring it into line with other police authorities and delete a few more references to the receiver. Such references will be repealed as and when the powers are no longer exercised by the receiver. The amendments remove some references to Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner, which will no longer be needed once those two posts are made police ranks, and tidy up a couple of references affected by the Access to Justice Act 1999.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We should like to place on record our thanks to the receiver—as we did in Committee—whose post will disappear in the transition. The receiver is a real person, despite having a title that most people would not understand. Intriguingly, he has played a constitutionally significant role in the history of the Met, and has been important in terms of its expenditure. In my experience, he has always done the job courteously and helpfully, and has assisted colleagues in trying to get to the bottom of matters that concern us and our constituents. We thank him for his work.
Secondly, we support the Government's proposal to rationalise the boundaries of the Met with those of Greater London. That was not in the original Green Paper, but was agreed as a result of representations, and the new arrangements will give a logical boundary to the Met. It is therefore sensible, as the Minister said, for a transitional arrangement to allow people who are serving in Metropolitan police district areas which are in the counties surrounding Greater London to be temporarily seconded. We are relieved to note that they will return to the Met, which, on this occasion, will not be the subject of salami-slicing. The numbers are well below establishment and we should like to see them return to establishment levels.
Thirdly—and I merely flag this up, as I know the Home Office is responsible for policing in the broader context—the police pensions bill in England and Wales rises every

year, as more police officers retire, but the pensions must be funded out of the allocated money to police forces under the normal budgetary allocations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others have referred to the possibility of the pensions of fire, civil defence and ambulance personnel being taken out of the normal revenue budget context, sooner rather than later, and put somewhere else. In that way, a huge increase in pensions payments would not have to be paid for out of any increase in revenue provided by the Government in a particular year, which would be a welcome development.
I appreciate that the Minister cannot simply announce a new policy now, but a request to colleagues in the Treasury and the Home Office as well as those in his Department to look positively at such proposals would be widely welcomed.

Mr. Raynsford: I wish to associate the Government with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the excellent work done by the receiver over 170-odd years.

Mr. Hughes: Not the same one.

Mr. Raynsford: Of course not, but the post goes back a long time. I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, however, because although the Bill presages the disappearance of the post of receiver, it can be seen from the next group of amendments that that does not happen quite yet. The receiver will have a role to play for a bit longer.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the boundary changes and the transition arrangements. I shall not rise to the bait in respect of his comments about police numbers.
The hon. Gentleman's third point about pension costs goes far wider than the Bill's remit, as he recognised. His comments are on the record and will be seen by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary, but it would be wrong for me to make a commitment on something that goes far wider than the debate before us.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 428 and 429 agreed to.

Clause 256

ABOLITION OF OFFICE OF RECEIVER

Lords amendment: No. 430, to leave out clause 256

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 431, 432, 558, 560 and 570.

Mr. Raynsford: It is the Government's policy that the criminal justice agencies should share the same boundaries, namely those of the police force areas in England and Wales. In the case of probation, that means that the existing 54 probation services must become 42. In all, 20 probation services will be involved in amalgamations, which we intend shall take effect on 1 April 2001.
In London, the five existing services—Inner London, South-East London, South-West London, Middlesex and North-East London—need to merge to form a new service for Greater London. Section 2 of the Probation Service Act 1993 contains an order-making power to amalgamate probation services. However, there is a problem in relation to the creation of a single London probation service, in that the 1993 Act clearly envisages that there shall be more than one probation service in London. We have concluded that to make an order amalgamating the London services under the existing provision would go beyond the vires of that provision. Our amendments will allow us to proceed with the London amalgamation. The new clause inserted by Lords amendment No. 431 provides an order-making power to that effect.
Our amendments also deal with the abolition of the receiver, an issue which arises because of the Inner London probation service's links to that office. To clarify my earlier remarks, the receiver will have a continuing responsibility in the transitional period until the new probation arrangements come into force.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 431 and 432 agreed to.

Clause 262

DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 433, in page 140, line 37, leave out ("for")

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 434, 786, 787, 789 and 790.

Mr. Raynsford: Lords amendments Nos. 433 and 434 deal with the power of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, LFEPA, to co-opt on to its committees and sub-committees individuals who are not members of the GLA. The need for the amendments emerged from consultation with the current fire authority and the Association of London Government. The effect of clause 262(2) is that a person may not be a co-opted member of a committee of LFEPA unless he or she is a member of a London borough council, the common council or the Assembly. That is more prescriptive than the present arrangements, and the amendments are intended to bring the Bill much more into line with existing law.
Lords amendment No. 786 arose from discussions with the Association of London Government. It sets out the action to be taken if a vacancy arises in the office of chairman of LFEPA. Paragraph 3(1) of schedule 23 requires the mayor in each year to appoint a chairman from among the members of the authority. Comparable legislation expressly provides for the filling of a vacancy in the office of chairman. The amendment therefore provides that, in the event of a vacancy arising in that office, the mayor will be required to appoint a new chairman from among the members of LFEPA as soon as possible.
Lords amendment No. 787 is a minor technical amendment dealing with inconsistent wording in paragraph 3 of schedule 23. It substitutes the word "appoint" for "elect" in paragraph 3(2), so that the same word appears throughout the paragraph. The wording used is consistent with other local government legislation.
The last two amendments relate to the consequential changes to legislation listed in schedule 24. Lords amendment No. 789 is a minor technical amendment to legislation affecting fire service pensions. For public service pensions increase legislation to apply to pension awards payable by LFEPA in the same way as it does to the current fire authority, a minor amendment is required to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971.
Lords amendment No. 790 will apply to LFEPA a provision that applies to the current fire authority. Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 imposes a duty on certain authorities to exercise their functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do what is possible to prevent, crime and disorder.
I hope that the House will support all those amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 434 agreed to.

Clause 264

THE SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Lords amendment: No. 435, in page 141, line 13, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("( ) The spatial development strategy must include statements dealing with the general spatial development aspects of—

(a) such of the other strategies prepared and published, or to be prepared and published, under the enactments mentioned in section 33(1) above as involve considerations of spatial development, and
(b) such of the Mayor's other policies or proposals as involve such considerations,

whether or not the strategy, policy or proposal relates to the development or use of land.")

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 436 to 438, 442, 443 and 452.

Mr. Raynsford: Amendment No. 435 defines more succinctly, taking into account clause 33(5), the relationship between the mayor's spatial development strategy and other strategies. Discussion in Commons Committee revealed some difficulties of interpretation, so we have taken the opportunity to rationalise and improve the wording of existing subsection (4). The amendment is, therefore, a drafting amendment, which clarifies that the mayor's spatial development strategy must cover the spatial aspects of his or her other strategies and policies.
Amendments Nos. 436 and 437 arise from a commitment that the Government gave in another place to consider an amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrats. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has left the Chamber, at the very moment when I was about to


say something nice about his contribution. However, I am sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) will relay to him my comments. The amendments ensure that, when deciding to whom consultation copies of the SDS should be sent, the mayor has to consider relevant bodies under the descriptions specified in clause 27(3)—the general consultation clause—as well as the consultees set out in part VIII of the Bill.
Government amendment No. 438 arises from my agreement in Committee to consider an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. It places a duty on the mayor to notify any withdrawal of the draft SDS to those who are consulted during the preparation of the strategy and on the draft. At present, the Bill requires only that those who have made representations about the SDS—rather than those who have been formally consulted—should be informed. We accepted that there might possibly have been a gap, and were thus happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment, because his approach seemed to be constructive.
Amendment No. 442 clarifies, for the avoidance of doubt, that the regulations that we are producing for the SDS may include procedures to be followed by the mayor to ensure that the Secretary of State has an opportunity to exercise the power of direction over the strategy referred to in clause 267.
Amendment No. 443 clarifies that the Secretary of State's power to direct amendment of the SDS can be made at any point before publication—not just on the consultation draft.
Amendment No. 452 is, in essence, a tidying-up amendment in relation to the mayor's role in representing London's interests to the rest of the south-east. It clarifies that the mayor is able to represent London's collective interests on planning matters on any relevant body, not merely one that is made up solely of local authority membership.

Lords amendment No. 435 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 436 to 438 agreed to.

Clause 267

PUBLICATION

Lords amendment: No. 439, in page 143, line 5, leave out ("findings reported") and insert ("report made")

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 440, 441, 444 and 447 to 450.

Mr. Raynsford: Amendments Nos. 439, 440, 441 and 444 arise from commitments made by the Government in another place to consider Opposition amendments relating to the report of the chair or of the panel of the examination in public into the spatial development strategy. Our intention is that the report of an EIP panel should include not merely findings of fact, but recommendations. After the debates held in the House during the past week over the report of the EIP panel into the south-east regional planning guidance, some hon. Members might question

the view that there should be recommendations. However, the notion that the panel should make recommendations, rather than including only findings of fact, is very much part of our approach. Concern was expressed that the current term, "findings", may be too narrow to encompass "recommendations". In planning Acts and secondary legislation, the term "report" is more often used. We believe that that would be a more appropriate word: the amendments therefore change relevant references in the Bill from "findings" to "report."
8.45 pm
The Bill as it stands provides for the Secretary of State to give the mayor by way of a development order the power to direct a London borough to refuse planning permission. Amendment No. 447 provides clarification to make certain that, when the Secretary of State makes such a development order, he can also impose a duty on the mayor to give reasons when he or she uses the power to direct refusal.
Amendments Nos. 448 and 449 arise from a commitment I gave to consider an amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). They provide that the mayor shall have regard to the unitary development plan and the spatial development strategy, so far as they are material to the application, when considering using his or her power to direct refusal of planning permission.
Amendment No. 450 also arises from Government commitments given in another place to consider amendments proposed by the Opposition. We have always made it clear that the mayor will be liable for the costs of holding an appeal inquiry and the costs of other parties where the mayor has directed refusal of planning permission unreasonably. That is an important discipline and safeguard. The amendment puts that provision on the face of the Bill and ensures that an order for costs can be made, whether or not the mayor participates in an inquiry.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 440 to 450 agreed to.

Clause 276

MONITORING AND DATA COLLECTION

Lords amendment: No. 451, in page 148, line 9, leave out subsections (2) to (7)

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 500 to 511.

Mr. Hill: Amendments Nos. 451 and 508 to 511 set the framework within which the mayor can work with London boroughs and the common council to promote research and monitoring work. They provide for the continuing involvement of London local authorities in pan-London research and ensure that the mayor has all the tools necessary to inform the development and monitor the implementation of strategies.
The amendments supersede the amendments on monitoring in clause 276, reflecting points raised in consideration of those provisions in another place,


especially about the need to ensure that excessive burdens are not placed on London local authorities. I gave an undertaking to table amendments to meet those concerns. During their development, the amendments have been the subject of close consultation between the Government and representatives of London government. I am grateful to my noble Friend Lord Harris of Haringey for his considerable help with them.
Amendments Nos. 500 to 506 fulfil the Government's commitment to tidy up the mayor's power to obtain information, advice and assistance from the functional bodies. The effect is to limit the duty to supply information, advice and assistance to that which the mayor may reasonably require for the exercise of his or her functions. The amendments also simplify the Secretary of State's power, by order, to make appropriate arrangements to protect privacy and confidentiality. We anticipate that the arrangements will be based on Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972.
Amendment No. 507 corrects a loophole that we noticed in the provisions of clause 315, which provides the Secretary of State with a fallback power enabling him to instruct the GLA to make research data that it has collected available to others, in recognition of the important role it is to inherit from the London Research Centre. However, the existing provisions do not extend to research work carried out by predecessor bodies but inherited by the GLA. The amendment makes it clear that the Secretary of State's power should extend to enabling him to instruct the GLA to make available information transferred to it under the transfer provisions in clauses 319 and 320.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 452 agreed to.

Clause 281

THE MAYOR'S ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

Lords amendment: No. 453, in page 150, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) biodiversity,")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 454, 456, 480 and 481.

Mr. Hill: Amendments Nos. 453 and 454 concern the state of the environment report. Amendment No. 453 would add biodiversity to the list of issues that the report should cover. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for spotting that omission in Committee.
Amendment No. 454 would delete the detailed definition of information that the mayor would be required to provide in the report under the heading, "road traffic levels". That definition should be up to the mayor.
Amendment No. 456 is also simple. On 1 April this year, the Countryside Commission merged with the Rural Development Commission. The new organisation is now known as the Countryside Agency, and the amendment would merely ensure that the correct name was on the face of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 480 and 481 would correct an anomaly in the Bill. Hon. Members will note that the Bill abolishes three existing organisations—the London Planning Advisory Committee, the London Ecology Committee and the London Research Centre—which are all due to be subsumed into the main body of the Greater London Authority.
We have already made clear our intention to abolish the three organisations on 1 April 2000 to allow a smooth transition to the new Authority. However, the Bill, as currently drafted, allows us to abolish the London Ecology Committee only
on the establishment of the Authority"—
that is, after the GLA elections have taken place. That will not allow us to plan properly in advance—as is clearly desirable—for the establishment of the GLA. The amendments would correct the position and allow us to abolish the London Ecology Committee at the same time as LPAC and LRC, on 1 April 2000.

Mr. John Randall: I thank the Minister for his gracious words. It would be mealy-mouthed to point out that I had to wait a long time for the amendment to be tabled. The Minister was gracious enough in Committee to say that such an amendment could be made to the Bill. It is a lesson to new Members of Parliament like me that patience is sometimes rewarded. I have not worked out the great difference between the amendment and the original amendment that required expert draftsmanship, but I am nevertheless grateful.

Mr. Brake: I hope that the Minister will concede that Liberal Democrat Members also raised the matter on several occasions. We were keen for the mayor's state of the environment report to reflect biodiversity. I should not nit-pick, but it is surprising that biodiversity was originally omitted from the Bill.
Londoners are worried about biodiversity. In a debate last week, I referred to the threat to London's biodiversity that developments associated with the millennium dome present. Biodiversity should be reflected in the mayor's report. When he or she produces a strategy and environmental statement, I hope that it will help to drive local biodiversity plans, many of which are in abeyance and are waiting for a kick-start from the London mayor. Therefore, I support the amendment.

Mr. Hill: Although I acknowledge the contribution that Liberal Democrats Members have made, we should be in no doubt that the amendment is a monument to the hon. Member for Uxbridge. We are enormously grateful, and congratulate him on what posterity will record as the Uxbridge amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment Nos. 454 to 456 agreed to.

Clause 286

DIRECTIONS BY THE MAYOR

Lords amendment: No. 457, in page 152, line 29, leave out from
("direction") to end of line 31

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 458 to 466.

Mr. Hill: The way in which the Bill was previously drafted may have resulted in some ambiguity concerning the use of the mayor's powers of direction. Over the summer, my officials held several meetings with representatives of the boroughs and the joint waste disposal authorities, so as to tease out the problems that could exist in the interface between the mayor's power of direction and the contractual nature of waste management. Once the position was clarified, my officials consulted every borough on our proposals, and I am pleased to be able to say that, for the most part, our proposals were warmly welcomed.
This group of amendments clarifies the scope of the mayor's power of direction, setting out how that power can be made to sit with the contractual nature of local authority waste management while retaining mayoral influence over municipal waste management in London. It is important to remember that the mayor's effectiveness in that matter, to some extent, depends, on the influence that he has, through his power of direction, over existing and new contracts. We recognise that most long-term contracts will make allowances for some flexibility and adjustment, which will allow the mayor some room for manoeuvre. However, it was never our intention that the mayor should be able to use the power of direction to require an authority to exercise a so-called "break clause" in a contract.
Such a use of that power could lead to authorities incurring substantial financial penalties and would have serious effects on London's waste management. It would certainly result in an increase in the cost of waste contracts as companies sought to cover the increased financial risk, and it could even result in companies not being prepared to enter contracts because they considered the risk too high. That would have very serious consequences for London.
The amendments clarify the proposals that we set out in the White Paper, which did not go into detail about the mayor's power of direction.

Mr. Woodward: We are all grateful for the work that the Minister and his officials carried out in the summer with a view to removing the ambiguity in the clause. However, has the ambiguity been finally removed? Some further clarification is necessary.
The amendment would clarify the mayor's powers with regard to the contractual nature of local authority waste management. However, it still poses more questions. The mayor's specific powers remain unclear and the amendment does not clarify whether the mayor would be obliged to have regard to the cost, practicality and environmental benefit of the waste management in question. What regard to cost would the mayor be obliged to have, and how specifically would those costs be audited and monitored?

Mr. Brake: I support the amendments, but wish to express a few words of caution.
It is entirely appropriate that a local authority should not be forced to terminate an existing contract. Equally, it is right that a local authority should inform the mayor of the impending expiry of any contract. That is desirable, because there will be opportunities for economies of scale at a London level, for Londonwide recycling projects and for waste-minimisation initiatives.
The mayor will have to tread carefully. The mayor should not use a stick against local authorities such as mine, the London borough of Sutton, which have effective waste-minimisation and recycling initiatives. There would be strong objections if the mayor attempted to overrule the local authority, even if it were perceived to be doing something slightly different from what the mayor desired.

9 pm

Mr. Brooke: I reinforce the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). Obviously, I do not have the Hansard record of how the Minister opened his speech, but my recollection is that he said that there might have been some ambiguity. As I remember it, that ambiguity unquestionably existed when we first considered the Bill, and I recall asking some probing questions. As the text of my probing questions is not of the same importance as those I asked in an earlier exchange with the Minister for Housing and Planning, I shall not bore the House with the date or the column reference in the Official Report.
Because there unquestionably was ambiguity at the beginning, I join my hon. Friend in thanking the Minister and his officials for the work that has been done in the summer, but I want to make certain that any last ambiguity has been squeezed out before we leave the matter.

Mr. Hill: Let me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister requires leave.

Mr. Hill: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) for raising an important issue.
On the issue of cost, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the explanatory note, which clearly states that there are further specific provisions to deal with contracts caught under public procurement regulations. When authorities are seeking offers in relation to the proposed contract under the public procurement procedures, they must generally issue two notices, the first containing general information—for example, as to the nature and extent of services to be provided—and the second advertising the authority's invitation to seek offers. The first is usually general in nature, and the second more specific.
Once the second notice is published, the authority cannot substantially alter the terms without having to go through the procedure again. The amendment ensures that the mayor cannot issue a direction once the second notice has been sent to the Official Journal of the European Communities in order that public procurement procedures are not frustrated.
The mayor must have regard to the best practical environmental option, as set out in the Secretary of State's guidance, to which the mayor must have recourse. The


mayor must consult the authority before issuing directions, and take into account a number of considerations in dealing with those matters, of which cost will be one. For the better information of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I undertake to write to him on the matter.
In response to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), may I say that I am aware of the high standards achieved by his borough on waste minimisation. The mayor must in no way impinge upon those excellent standards. Indeed, we would expect such an example of best practice to be widely disseminated throughout the new Authority area.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 458 to 466 agreed to.

Clause 294

DIRECTIONS UNDER THE ENVIRONMENT ACT 1995

Lords amendment: No. 467, in page 156, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("The") in line 10 and insert—
("(3) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
(4A)")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 468 to 471.

Mr. Hill: This group of amendments corrects an anomaly in the Bill relating to the mayor's powers to direct London local authorities in respect of Community air quality obligations and international agreements.
As hon. Members are aware, clause 294 devolves to the mayor the powers of direction under section 85 of the Environment Act 1995. Those powers relate to the local air quality management functions of London local authorities. For example, the mayor could direct a London authority to carry out a review and assessment of air quality in its area, or to prepare an action plan if it appears that air quality standards are unlikely to be met. However, section 85(5) of the 1995 Act includes the power to direct London local authorities "for the implementation of Community air quality obligations and international agreements. That power can be used in an essentially legislative manner to transpose such obligations.
It has never been intended that the mayor should have the legislative function of transposition. After all, the mayor is not a law-making body. Rather, he should police Community obligations once they have been transposed by the Secretary of State, as well as policing the operation of the local air quality management system in London.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 468 to 471 agreed to.

Clause 297

THE LONDON AMBIENT NOISE STRATEGY

Lords amendment: No. 472, in page 157, line 13, leave out ("contain") and insert ("consist of").

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 473 to 479.

Mr. Hill: The amendments clarify what is expected from the mayor's strategy so as better to reflect the intentions of the White Paper. We have defined what the strategy may consist of, removed the separate reference to the spatial development strategy and ensured that the Environment Agency is consulted when the mayor prepares or revises his strategy. We have provided that the mayor's strategy may contain information about the impact of noise on those living and working in London.
In response to Opposition amendments, "ambient noise" now includes transport rather than transport services and the mayor may include other descriptions of noise that he considers to be appropriate. There is provision for including in the strategy noise caused by aircraft and traffic and noise from a fixed industrial source. The White Paper commitment was that the mayor would not deal with neighbour noise and we have ensured that local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive will continue to deal with matters using powers under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.
There are two additional provisions. We have placed a duty on any person providing air navigation services to consult the mayor, where it is reasonably practicable to do so, when the provision of those services would have a significant adverse effect on the level or distribution of noise in Greater London or any part of Greater London.
The duty is limited to air navigation services only so far as they amount to the lateral or vertical alteration or addition of routes used regularly by civil aircraft before landing at, or after departing from, any aerodrome; or substantial alterations to the procedures used for managing the arrival of civil aircraft at aerodromes. It does not apply in relation to tactical decisions necessary in day-to-day air traffic control. The mayor will also be added to the list of organisations to be consulted by aerodromes designated under section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.

Mr. Woodward: I have a simple question about amendment No. 478 for the Minister. As so many other hon. Members wish to speak, doubtless his officials will be given the chance to scramble some answer to him. Under the amendment, the mayor will have the right to be consulted on new flights and flight paths and be allowed to give his opinion. Opinions are all well and good, as we in the House know, but the crucial question is, what force will his opinion have on the air navigation services?

Mr. McDonnell: I echo that question. It would be helpful to have clarification of the weight that will be given
to the mayor's opinion on this matter. From my constituency perspective, I wholeheartedly welcome the amendment, which will give us the opportunity for further debate about the impact of noise on many of our constituents in west London. It will give us a further lever to influence the direction and flow of aircraft and reduce the impact of noise on our communities as a result of that. I hope that it will also allow us to confirm some of the issues that we need to debate in connection with any further planning proposals that the British Airport Authority makes for Heathrow and a potential third runway.

Mr. Brake: I suspect that the same question will be asked three times, so that will save the Minister time. I echo what other hon. Members have said: I am pleased that the impact of noise on those who live and work in Greater London will appear in the ambient noise strategy and that aircraft noise will be included in that. However, the Minister must clarify exactly what he means when he says that any person providing air navigation services must consult the mayor. Residents in south-west London are glad that the mayor will be consulted, but if an increasing number of flights still goes over their heads at all times of the day and night, that will not give them much satisfaction.

Mr. Hill: First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) for welcoming the provisions. I am aware that he is closely concerned with the issues and that a consultation on runway alterations has taken place locally. That is exactly the sort of issue that the mayor and the Assembly would be expected to deal with in due course.
The hon. Members for Witney (Mr. Woodward) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asked what force the mayor's opinion will have. The simple truth is that the mayor has no absolute powers in this matter. However, he or she will be an influential person, personally elected by 7 million Londoners. It is therefore entirely predictable and reasonable that the mayor's representations will be seriously taken into account by the relevant authorities. It remains the case, however, that it is an opinion in a process of consultation, and consultation means that views have to be taken into account before a final decision is made.
To some extent, the question is akin to the sort of question that constituents might ask about representations made by Members of Parliament—I am certainly often asked about the force of my representation. We cannot always quantify the force of our representation, but as individuals with a democratic mandate in our locality, we know that our representation is normally taken into account. The mayor represents a massive constituency and has a massive mandate, so his or her opinion will be seriously considered by the relevant authorities.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 473 to 481 agreed to.

Clause 301

THE MAYOR'S CULTURE STRATEGY

Lords amendment: No. 482, in page 158, line 39, at end insert—

("( ) archives;")

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
We now come to part X of the Bill, which deals with culture. The purpose of the amendment is to make specific reference to archives in the list of topics that may be included in the draft culture strategy. I would emphasise that the list of topics is purely exemplary and that the addition has no legal significance.
Nevertheless, the Government regard archives as an important part of the cultural life of the nation and wish to raise the profile of the sector. Archives are one of the strategic responsibilities of the new Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. London, in particular, is the home of many unique and important archive collections, which play a vital role in defining the city's cultural identity.
9.15 pm
In Committee, the matter was raised by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who made an eloquent plea for the inclusion of the specific reference to archives. I am glad that we are able to respond now. Let me also take this opportunity to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for inadvertently suggesting in an earlier debate that something was included in a White Paper when it was not. I was incorrect; I apologise unreservedly to the right hon. Gentleman, and once again acknowledge his mastery of the detail of this legislation, which ensured that his original comment was entirely accurate.
It is because of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention that—having taken into account his views and those of others put to us in Committee and elsewhere, and in another place—the Government decided to accept the amendment tabled by the Opposition. The effect will be to insert "archives" on a new line, as a separate sub-heading, under "library services".

Mr. Brooke: I thank the Minister for his gracious words.
This was always the shortest of all the amendments tabled to the Bill during its progress. Although—partly owing to provocation by the Minister—I spoke at some length when the subject was last debated, I shall be brief on this occasion. The amendment was rejected in Committee here, and in Committee in the Lords. I am delighted that, thanks to the eloquence of my noble Friend Lord Teviot, it was accepted on Report in the Lords, and I am delighted that it is in the Bill now.
I have two reasons for being pleased about that. First, towards the end of my over-long speech, I invoked the spirit of my old friend the late Raphael Samuel. He was a tremendous oral historian: every shelf of his library in Spitalfields was three-deep in books. I think that, in another place—in a really different place, I mean—he may be smiling about what we have achieved today.
Secondly, shortly after the Committee stage, I accepted a request to review Mr. Stephen Inwood's book, "A History of London"—I did not realise that it contained 1,111 pages. In any event, my review closed with the coda that it would be a worthy tribute to Mr. Inwood's book if the Government could be persuaded to incorporate in the Bill the amendments relating to archives. I do not know what Mr. Inwood's views are, but I personally am very pleased.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 483 agreed to.

Clause 302

GRANTS BY THE MAYOR FOR MUSEUMS, GALLERIES ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 484, in page 159, line 18, leave out ("pay grants") and insert

("provide financial or other assistance")

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 485 to 488.

Mr. Raynsford: The overall effect of the amendments is to ensure that the mayor may give both financial and non-financial assistance—subject to conditions—to cultural institutions and tourism in London. The Government consider that that provision improves the Bill. It gives the mayor full discretion to choose in what form to make assistance available, and with what limitations.
Again, I express my gratitude to the Opposition, who first suggested extending the power in respect of cultural institutions, and whose amendments had been accepted, in spirit, by Third Reading.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 485 to 488 agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 489, after clause 304, to insert the following new clause—Delegation of Authority's functions—

".—(1) Any function exercisable on behalf of the Authority by the Mayor under or by virtue of this Part shall also be exercisable on behalf of the Authority by any of the bodies or persons specified in subsection (2) below, if or to the extent that the Mayor so authorises, whether generally or specially, and subject to any conditions imposed by the Mayor.

(2) Those bodies and persons are—

(a) the Deputy Mayor;
 (b) any member of staff of the Authority;
 (c) the Cultural Strategy Group for London;
 (d) the London Development Agency;
 (e) the Common Council;
 (f) any local authority.

(3) In the case of the Common Council or a local authority, an authorisation under this section—

(a) may only be granted or varied with its written consent; and
(b) shall cease to have effect if notice of the withdrawal of that consent is given to the Mayor.

(4) Where, by virtue of an authorisation under subsection (1) above, a duty is exercisable by any of the bodies or persons specified in subsection (2) above, that body or person shall discharge the duty in accordance with the authorisation and any conditions imposed by the Mayor under subsection (1) above.

(5) Subsection (4) above is without prejudice to the exercise by the body or person concerned of any power to arrange for the discharge of functions by—

(a) a committee or sub—committee, or a member, officer or employee, of the body or person, or
(b) a joint committee on which the person or body is represented,


except to the extent that the terms of the authorisation or any conditions imposed by the Mayor under subsection (1) above otherwise provide.

(6) Subsection (1) above does not apply—

(a) in relation to functions under this section; or
(b) in relation to any function of making byelaws under section (Byelaws)(1) below.

(7) An authorisation under subsection (1) above which relates to—

(a) any function under section 301 above; or
(b) the exercise of any function under or by virtue of section (Trafalgar Square)(1) or (Parliament Square)(3) below to the extent that it involves a determination as to whether to permit a public demonstration to take place in Trafalgar Square or Parliament Square Garden;

may only be given to the Deputy Mayor or a member of staff of the Authority.

(8) An authorisation under subsection (1) above which relates to any function of enforcing any byelaws made under section (Byelaws)(1) below may only be given—

(a) to the Deputy Mayor,
(b) to any member of staff of the Authority,
(c) to the Common Council.
(d) to any local authority.

(9) Each of the following bodies, namely—

(a) the Cultural Strategy Group for London,
(b) the London Development Agency,
(c) the Common Council,
(d) any local authority,

shall have power to exercise functions on behalf of the Authority in accordance with this section, whether or not they would have power to do so apart from this subsection and irrespective of the nature of the function.

(10) Subsections (3) and (4) of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 (delegation of functions to committees, officers etc, and continued exercise by local authority concerned) shall apply in relation to any authorisation under subsection (1) above given by the Mayor—

(a) to a local authority,
(b) to the Cultural Strategy Group for London, or
(c) to the London Development Agency,

as they apply to arrangements under that section between one local authority and another.

(11) An authorisation under this section may be varied or revoked at any time by the Mayor.

(12) Any authorisation under this section, and any variation or revocation of such an authorisation, must be in writing.

(13) In this section—
Trafalgar Square" has the same meaning as in the Trafalgar Square Act 1844;
Parliament Square Garden" means the central garden of Parliament Square, within the meaning of section (Parliament Square) below.

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 490 to 495 and 820.

Mr. Raynsford: We have been coming closer to home with the amendments. We now reach Trafalgar square and Parliament square, which are the subject of the amendments. We are considering the amendments


together because, although they involve two distinct topics—delegation and the transfer of management responsibilities for Trafalgar and Parliament squares—they are closely related. The amendments cover the transfer from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to the GLA of day-to-day responsibility for Trafalgar square and Parliament square. Both squares will remain Crown land.
The mayor will be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the fabric of the squares, including cleaning and lighting, and for regulating their use, with functions such as giving permission for rallies and events in Trafalgar square and the control of trading, which is a controversial and significant issue.
I think there will be general agreement that Trafalgar and Parliament squares are of huge importance to London—and, indeed, to the whole nation. The Government consider that the mayor should have responsibility for them and be able to take the lead in implementing the World Squares for All master-plan project.
Amendment No. 494 gives the GLA the power to make byelaws that will replace the regulations through which the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport currently manages the squares. The mayor will be the confirming authority for the byelaws, through which he or she will be able to exercise new enforcement powers, which the Secretary of State does not have, equivalent to those of Westminster city council—the neighbouring local authority—to control illegal trading in the squares. That will allow the mayor to deal effectively with the long-standing and ever-increasing nuisance caused by illegal traders in Trafalgar square, and to prevent such problems from arising in Parliament square.
The amendments will also give the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport the powers to issue guidelines to ensure the effective care, control, management and regulation of the squares. We intend to issue guidelines initially to reflect current policy for the management of Trafalgar square in particular. That approach recognises the national significance of the squares and provides scope for a policy steer without constraining the mayor's discretion to carry out his or her new responsibilities. The mayor must have regard to such guidelines, but he or she will remain the ultimate arbiter.
It is envisaged that the mayor will make contracts and arrangements with other organisations in respect of most of those functions. For example, officers of Westminster city council could undertake policing functions in the squares, specifically in relation to unlicensed traders. However, decisions on whether a particular public demonstration should take place in the squares are to be taken by the mayor, representing a democratically elected Authority. The Government believe that it is right to ensure that decisions affecting such sensitive matters cannot be delegated.
That brings me to the general powers of delegation for this part of the Bill. Amendment No. 489 largely substitutes for the general power of delegation in respect of part X. The new clause, which will follow clause 304, makes part X largely self-contained in that respect. Its effect is generally to mirror the mayor's other powers of delegation, for example to the deputy mayor and staff of the GLA and to local authorities. However, it removes the possibility of delegating cultural functions to Transport

for London. Instead, it adds the essential power for the mayor to delegate to the cultural strategy group for London. That is a consequential, technical amendment.
Apart from the limitations already outlined, the mayor will not be able to delegate the making of byelaws or his or her own decisions on the culture strategy. Delegation of the policing of the squares is also restricted. There are specific provisions requiring delegation to be in writing and, in the case of delegation to a local authority, with its written consent. There are technical subsections ensuring, for example, that the delegates have the requisite powers to accept delegation and to act through committees or staff where appropriate.
Earlier, I inadvertently described the mayor as the confirming authority for the byelaws. In fact, it is the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The mayor will make the byelaws, which will be subject to approval by the Secretary of State. I hope that that clarifies the purposes of the amendments. I urge the House to agree with the Lords in them.

Mr. Brake: I wholeheartedly support the amendments. One can imagine the disappointment of the mayor if, on election, he or she found that they had no control over two of London's greatest squares. I am certain that one of the first things the mayor will want to do is to get cars out of, and to get pedestrians, bicycles and public transport into, those squares, and to turn them into squares of which we can be proud and which register internationally. The squares could be places where people could walk in relative tranquillity and safety in the middle of London's frenetic bustle. Londoners want more squares, and it will be the mayor's job to deliver them.

Mr. Brooke: I join the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) in support of the amendments. I enjoyed the Minister's reference to coming "closer to home," and there was a touch of the Monopoly board about his sequence. I can only assume that Parliament square has never appeared on the Monopoly board because it has no residential accommodation—other than that of Madam Speaker. If the procedure is as successful as the Minister was adumbrating, the sooner the mayor takes responsibility for the illegal vendors in the royal parks, the better I shall be pleased. There is nothing that the Bill can do about that, but I join the Minister in the belief that what has been done so far has been thoroughly sensible.

Mr. Raynsford: With leave of the House, Madam Speaker. I endorse the views of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). It is essential that we carry the improvements forward and make Trafalgar square and Parliament square accessible to pedestrians and a pleasant environment for people to enjoy. That is the objective of the world squares initiative, which we are determined to take forward—the Deputy Prime Minister has given a strong personal commitment to it.
I enjoyed the reference by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to the Monopoly board. I hope that, as a consequence of this, neither of us will go to jail. I strongly endorse the amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 490 to 511 agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 512, after clause 315, to insert the following new clause—Overseas assistance—

.—(1) Section 1 of the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 (power of local authorities to provide advice and assistance overseas) shall be amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
(6A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the Greater London Authority shall be treated as having skill and experience as respects a particular matter if—

(a) the Authority does not have skill and experience as respects that matter,
(b) the London Development Agency does have such skill and experience, and
(c) the Agency provides advice and assistance as respects that matter to the Authority."

(3) In subsection (9)(a) (authorities given power to provide assistance) after "Wales," there shall he inserted "the Greater London Authority,".")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment provides for the Greater London Authority and the London development agency to be able to provide assistance under the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993, meeting assurances given by Ministers earlier in the Bill's passage.
Similar provision is not needed for Transport for London—which already has the power to offer such assistance under paragraph 9 of schedule 9 to the Bill—or for the police or fire authorities, which are already covered by existing legislation.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 513 and 514 agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 515, after clause 318, to insert the following new clause—Appointments by the Secretary of State—

.—(1) Any functions under or by virtue of this Act which will become exercisable by a person or body other than the Secretary of State may, before they become so exercisable, be exercised by the Secretary of State for the purpose of appointing such persons as he considers necessary to secure that any provision made by or under this Act operates satisfactorily when it comes into force.
(2) The Secretary of State may defray any costs which are incurred in the exercise of the functions mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(3) In exercising the functions mentioned in subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may appoint a person on such terms and conditions (including conditions as to remuneration) as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(4) Any such terms and conditions may include provision to the effect that the person concerned—

(a) is, or is not, to be or become a member of a particular pension scheme, or
(b) is, or is not, to be treated as employed in the civil service of the State."

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Lords amendment No. 515 is required to make it clear that the Secretary of State has power to appoint such persons as he considers necessary to ensure that provisions by or under the Act operate satisfactorily when

they come into force. Such persons may be appointed on terms and conditions that differ from standard civil service ones. It might be helpful if I gave some examples of when the Government intend that that power should be used.
9.30 pm
The first example concerns the London Ecology Unit, the London Planning Advisory Committee and the London Research Centre—each of which will be abolished on 1 April 2000. The staff of the three bodies will transfer to the GLA on its establishment, on 8 May 2000. Between 1 April and 8 May, the intention is, first, that they will be employed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Staff will retain their existing terms and conditions and pension arrangements throughout that period.
Our intention is, secondly, that some of the people who will eventually work for the GLA and functional bodies should be recruited in advance of their establishment to do the necessary groundwork, so that the bodies will be able to operate effectively from the outset. The intention is that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions or the Home Secretary, as appropriate, should act as the employer of those people prior to their transfer to the GLA, or to the relevant functional body once it has been established. Therefore, in the case of the GLA itself, for example, the newly recruited people would transfer from the Secretary of State's employ to that of the GLA on 8 May 2000.
The likelihood is that the first of those people will need to have been recruited before the end of this year—well in advance of the Secretary of State becoming the employer of the staff of the LEU, LPAC and LRC. We think that clear statutory authority is desirable, to ensure that Ministers have the necessary powers to make such appointments.
I should make it clear that any appointments to the most senior posts in the new bodies will be made on a temporary basis, and that some posts will be left vacant, to allow the GLA and the relevant responsible bodies to decide for themselves in due course the most appropriate arrangements. The power of the Secretary of State to make appointments to each body will cease once the relevant functions become exercisable by that body. Thereafter, it will be for the bodies themselves to make appointments.

Mr. Woodward: I am sorry to have to bring to an abrupt end the rather convivial atmosphere that has developed in the House in the past hour—nevertheless, with great regret, it must end.
Lords amendment No. 515 will soon be know as the Brent, East amendment, as it is the preparatory work that the Government feel is necessary should the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) manage, despite the work of various campaign managers, to secure the Labour party nomination for London mayor.
The new clause is breathtaking, both for the power that it would give to the Secretary of State and for its casual inclusion at such a late stage in the Bill's passage—but we have become rather accustomed to the Government's late inclusion of such provisions.
In another place, Baroness Miller—whose work on the Bill, throughout its passage, has been tireless—said that to present
this type of amendment at Third Reading is beyond belief."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 675.]
She admitted to being appalled that the new clause should have been considered by the other place at such a late stage in the Bill's progress, and Opposition Members share her view.
Is the amendment not yet another example of the truly dreadful standards practised in the Bill's construction? Is it not another example of the Bill's rather shoddy construction? Is not the Bill effectively being re-written through 818 Government amendments, most of which we shall have no possibility to consider today because of the Government's timetable motion?
How can the Minister say with any dignity that the provisions of Lords amendment No. 515 had not been thought of before? Did the Government finally realise that the amendment was necessary, or did its introduction have more to do with the fact that the campaign manager realised that his candidate might not win and that the candidate from Brent, East might secure the nomination?
Ministers have said that the powers in the amendment would be for only temporary use. If it were a matter simply of the Minister's charm, I am sure that we might wish to believe him. However, the amendment does not say when the contracts might come to an end. Indeed, the amendment gives no point of termination for the arrangements that the Minister would like us to believe will be short-term and temporary. The new clause will allow the Secretary of State to make all the appointments that the mayor and Assembly should make when they take office. Why can that not be left to the mayor? If it is so important that the appointments be made earlier, it takes the biscuit for the Minister to say with an honest face that he and his officials could not have thought about it before.
Lords amendment No. 515 says:
the Secretary of State may appoint a person on such terms and conditions…as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
That creates carte blanche for the Secretary of State to hire whomever he chooses, under any contractual conditions for any period. Nowhere in the amendment is there anything to the contrary.
The arrangement relies on trust alone, yet unfortunately, during our discussion of the Bill, we have repeatedly had grounds not to trust the Government on such matters. Where is the guarantee that the amendment will not be used to put placemen into Transport for London, the London development agency or the cultural strategy group before the mayor takes over?
If people are hired on contract, will it not be expensive to get rid of them if the mayor decides that he does not want them? Who will pay? The London council tax payer will pay the cost of the Secretary of State's folly. How many posts does the right hon. Gentleman have it in mind to fill in that way? The Minister gave some examples, for which we are grateful, but perhaps he could give us guarantees of some of the appointments that will not be made under the amendment.
We will divide the House on the Lords amendment because we do not believe in it in any shape or form, and we do not believe that it is in the democratic interests of

the Assembly or the city itself. Putting placemen from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions into the Authority is not a good idea. It will corrupt a body that we would like to see stand up for London.

Mr. McDonnell: I shall quickly move on from that bluster and make a serious point concerning the transfer of staff. Both as an elected local councillor and as a local government officer, I have now experienced six reorganisations at the strategic and local levels, so I ask the Minister to reassure us that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply to most staff who are transferred from existing bodies to a new body to serve the same function.
Most of the senior staff are now on fixed-term appointments, so if senior staff are to be appointed as the Lords amendment suggests, fixed-term contracts will apply. The question is therefore: what is the definition of "temporary"? How long does the Minister envisage that the fixed-term appointments will last?

Mr. Hill: The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) worked himself into a bit of a lather on this one. I suppose that, having planted the story that we read in the Sunday Express yesterday, he felt obliged to bring it, with such energy as he could summon—which was not a great deal—to the Chamber. There was a slight piece in that newspaper at the weekend, but it was none the less clotted nonsense for being slight.
There is nothing in the charge that the staff being recruited and appointed to the back-up team at the GLA are anything other than essential staff, such as security, clerical, administrative and IT staff who are vital if we are to achieve an effective transition when the mayor and the Assembly take over. They will take over in Romney house where the transition team is already in place and is recruiting the staff I have just mentioned. We expect that it will recruit 200 out of a potential 250 staff for the GLA, to be in place by the time that the mayor and Assembly take over.
The key point is that all the key heads of departments and senior figures in the GLA administration—and, without qualification, all those who will be deemed to play any kind of political advisory role within the mayoralty and the Assembly—will be left for the mayor and Assembly to appoint. They will not be appointed by the transition team, much less—as the ludicrous piece in the Sunday Express suggested—by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
As a clear indication of our total transparency and usual honesty, the whole question of the appointment of senior personnel for the GLA is, as is usual with this Government, the subject of a current consultation. We are seeking the advice of all the relevant players on the London scene, so that we can get it right. Getting it right means doing the best for London and Londoners, and not playing petty party political games, such as I fear the hon. Member for Witney—unusually—is playing this evening.

Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 346, Noes 138.

Division No. 300]
[9.42 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Coleman, Iain


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Connarty, Michael


Ainger, Nick
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cooper, Yvette


Alexander, Douglas
Corbett, Robin


Allan, Richard
Corbyn, Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Corston, Jean


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cotter, Brian


Ashton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cox, Tom


Atkins, Charlotte
Cranston, Ross


Austin, John
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Baker, Norman
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Barnes, Harry
Cummings, John


Barron, Kevin
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Beard, Nigel
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dalyell, Tam


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Darvill, Keith


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Berry, Roger
Dean, Mrs Janet


Betts, Clive
Denham, John


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dobbin, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Donohoe, Brian H


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Doran, Frank


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dowd, Jim


Borrow, David
Drew, David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Edwards, Huw


Brake, Tom
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brand, Dr Peter
Etherington, Bill


Breed, Colin
Fearn, Ronnie


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Reid, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fizpatrick, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Buck, Ms Karen
Flint, Caroline


Burden, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Burgon, Colin
Follett, Barbara


Burnett, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Don (Bath)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)



Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caplin, Ivor
Godman, Dr Norman A


Casale, Roger
Godsiff, Roger


Caton, Martin
Goggins, Paul


Chaytor, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chidgey, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grocott, Bruce



Grogan, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hancock, Mike


Clelland, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clwyd, Ann
Healey, John


Coaker, Vernon
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)





Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heppell, John
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hesford, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Maxton, John


Hill, Keith
Meale, Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Merron, Gillian


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hood, Jimmy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hope, Phil
Miller, Andrew


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moffatt, Laura


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mountford, Kali


Hurst, Alan
Mudie, George


Hutton, John
Mullin, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jenkins, Brian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)



O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Organ, Mrs Diana



Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pickthall, Colin


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pike, Peter L


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Plaskitt, James


Keeble. Ms Sally
Pond, Chris


Keen, Alan (Feltharn & Heston)
Pope, Greg


Keetch, Paul
Pound, Stephen


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Khabra, Piara S
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kidney, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Purchase, Ken


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kirkwood, Archy
Rammell, Bill


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rapson, Syd


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Raynsford, Nick


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Laxton, Bob
Rendel, David


Leslie, Christopher
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Levitt, Tom
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Linton, Martin
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roy, Frank


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ruane, Chris


Lock, David
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McCabe, Steve
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Ryan, Ms Joan



Salter, Martin


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sanders, Adrian


Macdonald, Calum
Sarwar, Mohammad


McDonnell, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sawford, Phil


McIsaac, Shona
Sedgemore, Brian


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Shaw, Jonathan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mactaggart, Fiona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWalter, Tony
Singh, Marsha


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Snape, Peter






Southworth, Ms Helen
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Spellar, John
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Tynan, Bill


Steinberg, Gerry
Walley, Ms Joan


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wareing, Robert N


Stinchcombe, Paul
Watts, David


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Webb, Steve


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
White, Brian


Stringer, Graham
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wicks, Malcolm


Stunell, Andrew
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sutcliffe, Gerry



Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Willis, Phil


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wills Michael


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Winnick, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wise, Audrey


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wood, Mike


Timms, Stephen
Woolas, Phil


Tipping, Paddy
Worthington, Tony


Todd, Mark
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Touhig, Don
Wyatt, Derek


Truswell, Paul



Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Mr. Kevin Hughes.


NOES


Amess, David
Fox, Dr Liam


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Fraser, Christopher


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gale, Roger


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Garnier, Edward


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gibb, Nick


Baldry, Tony
Gill, Christopher


Bercow, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gray, James


Blunt, Crispin
Green, Damian


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Grieve, Dominic


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brady, Graham
Hammond, Philip


Brazier, Julian
Hawkins, Nick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hayes, John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Burns, Simon
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Butterfill, John
Horam, John


Cash, William
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hunter, Andrew



Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Jenkin, Bernard


Clappison, James
Key, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Collins, Tim
Lansley, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Leigh, Edward


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Letwin, Oliver


Cran, James
Lidington, David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Duncan, Alan
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Duncan Smith, Iain
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Evans, Nigel
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Faber, David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fabricant, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Madel, Sir David


Flight, Howard
Malins, Humfrey


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Maples, John





Mates, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Streeter, Gary


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Swayne, Desmond


May, Mrs Theresa
Syms, Robert


Moss, Malcolm
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Page, Richard
Townend, John


Paice, James
Tredinnick, David


Paterson, Owen
Trend, Michael


Pickles, Eric
Tyrie, Andrew



Viggers, Peter


Prior, David
Wardle, Charles


Randall, John
Waterson, Nigel


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Robathan, Andrew
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Robertson, Laurence
Whittingdale, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wilkinson, John


Ruffley, David
Willetts, David


St Aubyn, Nick
Wilshire, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Woodward, Shaun


Shepherd, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Soames, Nicholas



Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Sir Michael
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Spring, Richard
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in amendments Nos. 516 to 521.— [Mr. Dowd.]

The House divided: Ayes 349, Noes 139.

Division No. 301]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Borrow, David


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ainger, Nick
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brake, Tom


Alexander, Douglas
Brand, Dr Peter


Allan, Richard
Breed, Colin


Allen, Graham
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Browne, Desmond


Atkins, Charlotte
Burden, Richard


Austin, John
Burgon, Colin


Baker, Norman
Burnett, John


Barnes, Harry
Burstow, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Butler, Mrs Christine


Bayley, Hugh
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Beard, Nigel
Cable, Dr Vincent


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)



Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bennett, Andrew F
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Bermingham, Gerald
Caplin, Ivor


Berry, Roger
Casale, Roger


Betts, Clive
Caton, Martin


Blears, Ms Hazel
Chaytor, David


Blizzard, Bob
Chidgey, David


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Clapham, Michael


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)






Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grogan, John



Hain, Peter


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hancock, Mike


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clelland, David
Healey, John


Clwyd, Ann
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cohen, Harry
Hepburn, Stephen


Coleman, Iain
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cooper, Yvette
Hill, Keith


Corbett, Robin
Hinchliffe, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corston, Jean
Hood, Jimmy


Cotter, Brian
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
Hope, Phil


Cox, Tom
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cranston, Ross
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cummings, John
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hurst, Alan


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hutton, John


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darvill, Keith
Jamieson, David


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jenkins, Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)



Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Mrs Rona (Newark)


Denham, John
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Donohoe, Brian H



Doran, Frank
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Drew, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Edwards, Huw
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Efford, Clive
Keeble, Ms Sally


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Keen, Alan (Feltharn & Heston)


Etherington, Bill
Keetch, Paul


Fearn, Ronnie
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Reid, Rt Hon Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Fisher, Mark
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kidney, David


Flint, Caroline
Kilfoyle, Peter


Flynn, Paul
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Follett, Barbara
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kirkwood, Archy


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fyfe, Maria
Laxton, Bob


Gapes, Mike
Leslie, Christopher


Gardiner, Barry
Levitt, Tom


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gerrard, Neil
Linton, Martin


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Llwyd, Elfyn


Godman, Dr Norman A
Lock, David


Godsiff, Roger
McAvoy, Thomas


Goggins, Paul
McCabe, Steve


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen



Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Macdonald, Calum


Grocott, Bruce
McDonnell, John





McGuire, Mrs Anne
Salter, Martin


McIsaac, Shona
Sanders, Adrian


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sarwar, Mohammad


Mackinlay, Andrew
Savidge, Malcolm


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Sawford, Phil


McNulty, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian


Mactaggart, Fiona
Shaw, Jonathan


McWalter, Tony
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mallaber, Judy
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Singh, Marsha


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Meale, Alan
Southworth, Ms Helen


Merron, Gillian
Spellar, John


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mitchell, Austin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moffatt, Laura
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moran, Ms Margaret
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stringer, Graham


Mountford, Kali
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mudie, George
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Timms, Stephen


Olner, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


O'Neill, Martin
Todd, Mark


Organ, Mrs Diana
Touhig, Don


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Truswell, Paul


Palmer, Dr Nick
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Perham, Ms Linda
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pike, Peter L
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Plaskitt, James
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pond, Chris
Tynan, Bill


Pope, Greg
Walley, Ms Joan


Pound, Stephen
Ward, Ms Claire


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Watts, David


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Webb, Steve


Prescott, Rt Hon John
White, Brian


Prosser, Gwyn
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Purchase, Ken
Wicks, Malcolm


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Quinn, Lawrie



Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rammell, Bill
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rapson, Syd
Willis, Phil


Raynsford, Nick
Wills, Michael


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Winnick, David


Rendel, David
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wise, Audrey


Rooker, Jeff
Wood, Mike


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Woolas, Phil


Rowlands, Ted
Worthington, Tony


Roy, Frank
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ruane, Chris
Wyatt, Derek


Ruddock, Joan



Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and


Ryan, Ms Joan
Mr. Kevin Hughes.






NOES


Amess, David
Letwin, Oliver


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Lidington, David


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Loughton, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Luff, Peter


Bercow, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Beresford, Sir Paul
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Blunt, Crispin
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Boswell, Tim
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brady, Graham
Madel, Sir David


Brazier, Julian
Matins, Humfrey


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maples, John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Mates, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Burns, Simon
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Butterfill, John
May, Mrs Theresa


Cash, William
Moss, Malcolm


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Nicholls, Patrick



O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Chope, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Clappison, James
Page, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Paice, James


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Paterson, Owen



Pickles, Eric


Collins, Tim
Prior, David


Colvin, Michael
Randall, John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
Robathan, Andrew


Curry, Rt Hon David
Robertson, Laurence


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Ruffley, David



St Aubyn, Nick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Sayeed, Jonathan


Duncan, Alan
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Duncan Smith, Iain
Shepherd, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Faber, David
Soames, Nicholas


Fabricant, Michael
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fallon, Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael


Flight, Howard
Spring, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fox, Dr Liam
Streeter, Gary


Fraser, Christopher
Swayne, Desmond


Gale, Roger
Syms, Robert


Garnier, Edward
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gibb, Nick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gill, Christopher
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gray, James
Townend, John


Green, Damian
Tredinnick, David


Greenway, John
Trend, Michael


Grieve, Dominic
Tyrie, Andrew


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Viggers, Peter


Hammond, Philip
Wardle, Charles


Hawkins, Nick
Waterson, Nigel


Hayes, John
Wells, Bowen


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Whittingdale, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Horam, John
Wilkinson, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Willetts, David


Hunter, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Woodward, Shaun


Key, Robert
Yeo, Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tellers for the Noes:


Lansley, Andrew
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Leigh, Edward
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to the Order this day.

Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the remaining Lords amendments:—

The House divided: Ayes 349, Noes 136.

Division No. 302]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Allan, Richard
Clelland, David


Allen, Graham
Clwyd, Ann


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Coaker, Vernon


Ashton, Joe
Coffey, Ms Ann


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cohen, Harry


Atkins, Charlotte
Coleman, Iain


Austin, John
Connarty, Michael


Baker, Norman
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barnes, Harry
Cooper, Yvette


Barron, Kevin
Corbett, Robin


Bayley, Hugh
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beard, Nigel
Corston, Jean


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cotter, Brian


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cousins, Jim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cox, Tom


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cranston, Ross


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bennett, Andrew F
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cummings, John


Berry, Roger
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Blizzard, Bob
Dalyell, Tam


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Darvill, Keith


Borrow, David
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brake, Tom
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Brand, Dr Peter
Dean, Mrs Janet


Breed, Colin
Denham, John


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dobbin, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Donohoe, Brian H


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Doran, Frank


Browne, Desmond
Dowd, Jim


Burden, Richard
Drew, David


Burgon, Colin
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burnett, John
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burstow, Paul
Edwards, Huw


Butler, Mrs Christine
Efford, Clive


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Cable, Dr Vincent
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fearn, Ronnie


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Reid, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Fisher, Mark



Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Flint, Caroline


Caplin, Ivor
Rynn, Paul


Casale, Roger
Follett, Barbara


Caton, Martin
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chaytor, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Chidgey, David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Fyfe, Maria


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gapes, Mike



Gardiner, Barry






George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gerrard, Neil
Linton, Martin


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Llwyd, Elfyn


Godman, Dr Norman A
Lock, David


Godsiff, Roger
McAvoy, Thomas


Goggins, Paul
McCabe, Steve


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen



Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Macdonald, Calum


Grocott, Bruce
McDonnell, John


Grogan, John
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hain, Peter
McIsaac, Shona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hancock, Mike
McNulty, Tony


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mactaggart, Fiona


Healey, John
McWalter, Tony


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
McWilliam, John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mallaber, Judy


Hepburn, Stephen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Heppell, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Hill, Keith
Martlew, Eric


Hinchliffe, David
Maxton, John


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Meale, Alan


Hood, Jimmy
Merron, Gillian


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hope, Phil
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Miller, Andrew


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mitchell, Austin


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moffatt, Laura


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hurst, Alan
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hutton, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mountford, Kali


Illsley, Eric
Mudie, George


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mullin, Chris


Jamieson, David
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jenkins, Brian
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Naysmith, Dr Doug



O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Neill, Martin



Öpik, Lembit


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pearson, Ian


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Perham, Ms Linda


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pickthall, Colin


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pike, Peter L


Keen, Alan (Feltharn & Heston)
Plaskitt, James


Keetch, Paul
Pond, Chris


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pope, Greg


Kemp, Fraser
Pound, Stephen


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisharn E)


Kidney, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prescott, Rt Hon John


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Purchase, Ken


Kirkwood, Archy
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quinn, Lawrie


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rammell, Bill


Laxton, Bob
Rapson, Syd


Leslie, Christopher
Raynsford, Nick


Levitt, Tom
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)





Rendel, David
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rooker, Jeff
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Roy, Frank
Timms, Stephen


Ruane, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Ruddock, Joan
Todd, Mark


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Touhig, Don


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Truswell, Paul


Ryan, Ms Joan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Salter, Martin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sanders, Adrian
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Savidge, Malcolm
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sawford, Phil
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sedgemore, Brian
Tynan, Bill


Shaw, Jonathan
Walley, Ms Joan


Sheerman, Barry
Ward, Ms Claire


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wareing, Robert N


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Watts, David


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Webb, Steve


Singh, Marsha
White, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Spellar, John
Willis, Phil


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wills, Michael


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wise, Audrey


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wood, Mike


Stinchcombe, Paul
Woolas, Phil


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Worthington, Tony


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stringer, Graham
Wyatt, Derek


Stuart, Ms Gisela



Stunell, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Kevin Hughes and



Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.


NOES


Amess, David
Curry, Rt Hon David


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)



Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Duncan, Alan


Bercow, John
Evans, Nigel


Beresford, Sir Paul
Faber, David


Blunt, Crispin
Fabricant, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Flight, Howard


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brady, Graham
Fox, Dr Liam


Brazier, Julian
Fraser, Christopher


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gale, Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
Garnier, Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gibb, Nick


Burns, Simon
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cash, William
Gray, James


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Green, Damian



Greenway, John


Chope, Christopher
Grieve, Dominic


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hammond, Philip


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hawkins, Nick



Hayes, John


Collins, Tim
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Horam, John


Cran, James
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)






Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jenkin, Bernard
Ruffley, David


Key, Robert
St Aubyn, Nick


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Richard


Lansley, Andrew
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Leigh, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Letwin, Oliver
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Lidington, David
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spring, Richard


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareharn)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Loughton, Tim
Streeter, Gary


Luff, Peter
Swayne, Desmond


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Syms, Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Sir Teddy



Townend, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Madel, Sir David
Trend, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Tyrie, Andrew


Maples, John
Viggers, Peter


Mates, Michael
Wardle, Charles


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Waterson, Nigel


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Wells, Bowen


May, Mrs Theresa
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Moss, Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Wilkinson, John


Ottaway, Richard
Willetts, David


Page, Richard
Wilshire, David


Paice, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Paterson, Owen
Woodward, Shaun


Pickles, Eric
Yeo, Tim


Prior, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Randall, John



Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


Robathan, Andrew
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Robertson, Laurence
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments numbered 1 and 6; Mr. Jim Dowd, Mr. Phil Hope, Mrs. Jacqui Lait, Mr. Nick Raynsford and Mr. Shaun Woodward to be members of the Committee; Mr. Nick Raynsford to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee; Committee to withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Dowd.]

The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 158.

Division No. 303]
[10.27 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Ainger, Nick
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Alexander, Douglas
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Allen, Graham
Bennett, Andrew F


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Berry, Roger


Atherton, Ms Candy
Betts, Clive


Atkins, Charlotte
Blears, Ms Hazel


Austin, John
Blizzard, Bob


Barnes, Harry
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Barron, Kevin
Borrow, David


Bayley, Hugh
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Beard, Nigel
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)





Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gapes, Mike


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gardiner, Barry


Browne, Desmond
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Burden, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Burgon, Colin
Gibson, Dr Ian


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caton, Martin
Grocott, Bruce


Chaytor, David
Grogan, John


Clapham, Michael
Hain, Peter


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)



Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Healey, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hesford, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coaker, Vernon
Hill, Keith


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Cohen, Harry
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coleman, Iain
Hood, Jimmy


Connarty, Michael
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hope, Phil


Cooper, Yvette
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cotter, Brian
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cousins, Jim
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cox, Tom
Hurst, Alan


Cranston, Ross
Hutton, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jenkins, Brian


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)



Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Denham, John
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dobbin, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Donohoe, Brian H
Keeble, Ms Sally


Doran, Frank
Keen, Alan (Feltharn & Heston)


Dowd, Jim
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Drew, David
Kemp, Fraser


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Khabra, Piara S


Edwards, Huw
Kidney, David


Efford, Clive
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ellman, Mrs Louise
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Etherington, Bill
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fisher, Mark
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Laxton, Bob


Flint, Caroline
Leslie, Christopher


Flynn, Paul
Levitt, Tom


Follett, Barbara
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lock, David






McAvoy, Thomas
Ruane, Chris


McCabe, Steve
Ruddock, Joan


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sarwar, Mohammad


Macdonald, Calum
Savidge, Malcolm


McDonnell, John
Sawford, Phil


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sedgemore, Brian


McIsaac, Shona
Shaw, Jonathan


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sheerman, Barry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mactaggart, Fiona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWalter, Tony
Singh, Marsha


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Spellar, John


Martlew, Eric
Squire, Ms Rachel


Maxton, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Meale, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Merron, Gillian
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Stinchcombe, Paul


Miller, Andrew
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mitchell, Austin
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Moffatt, Laura
Stringer, Graham


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)



Mountford, Kali
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Mudie, George
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mullin, Chris
Temple-Morris, Peter


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Timms, Stephen


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Tipping, Paddy


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Todd, Mark


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Touhig, Don


Olner, Bill
Truswell, Paul


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pearson, Ian
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Perham, Ms Linda
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pickthall, Colin
Tynan, Bill


Pike, Peter L
Walley, Ms Joan


Plaskitt, James
Ward, Ms Claire


Pond, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Pope, Greg
Watts, David


Pound, Stephen
White, Brian


Powell, Sir Raymond
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Prescott, Rt Hon John



Prosser, Gwyn
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Wills, Michael


Quinn, Lawrie
Winnick, David


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Wise, Audrey


Rammell, Bill
Wood, Mike


Rapson, Syd
Woolas, Phil


Raynsford, Nick
Worthington, Tony


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wyatt, Derek


Rooker, Jeff



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Mike Hall and


Roy, Frank
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.





NOES


Allan, Richard
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Amess, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Jenkin, Bernard


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Keetch, Paul


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Key, Robert


Baker, Norman
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Baldry, Tony
Kirkwood, Archy


Bercow, John
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Blunt, Crispin
Lansley, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Letwin, Oliver


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lidington, David


Brady, Graham
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Brake, Tom
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Brand, Dr Peter
Llwyd, Elfyn


Brazier, Julian
Loughton, Tim


Breed, Colin
Luff, Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Browning, Mrs Angela
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Burnett, John
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Burns, Simon
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Burstow, Paul
McLoughlin, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Madel, Sir David


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Malins, Hurnfrey



Maples, John


Cash, William
Mates, Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian



May, Mrs Theresa


Chidgey, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Chope, Christopher
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Clappison, James
Moss, Malcolm


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Nicholls, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)



Öpik, Lembit


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Ottaway, Richard


Collins, Tim
Page, Richard


Colvin, Michael
Paice, James


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Paterson, Owen


Cran, James
Pickles, Eric


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Prior, David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice &Howden)
Randall, John



Redwood, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Rendel, David


Duncan, Alan
Robathan, Andrew


Duncan Smith, Iain
Robertson, Laurence


Evans, Nigel
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Faber, David
Ruffley, David


Fabricant, Michael
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Fallon, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Fearn, Ronnie
Sayeed, Jonathan


Flight, Howard
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Shepherd, Richard


Foster, Don (Bath)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fox, Dr Liam
Soames, Nicholas


Fraser, Christopher
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Garnier, Edward
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gibb, Nick
Spring, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Streeter, Gary


Gray, James
Swayne, Desmond


Green, Damian
Syms, Robert


Greenway, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hammond, Philip
Townend, John


Hancock, Mike
Tredinnick, David


Hawkins, Nick
Trend, Michael


Hayes, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Viggers, Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Wardle, Charles


Horam, John
Waterson, Nigel


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Webb, Steve






Wells, Bowen
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Woodward, Shaun


Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Willis, Phil
Mr. Andrew Stunell and


Wilshire, David
Mr. Adrian Sanders.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): We now come to motion No. 3, which I intend to put together with the Questions on the other motions on the Order Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] In that case, we shall take them separately.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

TAXES

That the draft Tax Credit (New Category of Child Care Provider) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 342, Noes 59.

Division No. 304]
[10.39 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Browne, Desmond


Ainger, Nick
Burden, Richard


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Burgon, Colin


Alexander, Douglas
Burnett, John


Allan, Richard
Burstow, Paul


Allen, Graham
Butler, Mrs Christine


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Austin, John



Baker, Norman
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barron, Kevin
Caplin, Ivor


Bayley, Hugh
Casale, Roger


Beard, Nigel
Caton, Martin


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Chaytor, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Chidgey, David


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clapharn, Michael


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bennett, Andrew F



Benton, Joe
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blizzard, Bob
Clelland, David


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Clwyd, Ann


Borrow, David
Coaker, Vernon


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cohen, Harry


Brake, Tom
Coleman, Iain


Brand, Dr Peter
Connarty, Michael


Breed, Colin
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cooper, Yvette


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Corbett, Robin





Corbyn, Jeremy
Hope, Phil


Corston, Jean
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cotter, Brian
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hurst, Alan


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Illsley, Eric


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dalyell, Tam
Jamieson, David


Darvill, Keith
Jenkins, Brian


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Denham, John



Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dowd, Jim
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Drew, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Keeble, Ms Salty


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Edwards, Huw
Keetch, Paul


Efford, Clive
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kemp, Fraser


Etherington, Bill
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fearn, Ronnie
Khabra, Piara S


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kidney, David


Fisher, Mark
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fitzpatrick, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Flint, Caroline
Kirkwood, Archy


Flynn, Paul
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Follett, Barbara
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Don (Bath)
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Levitt, Tom


Fyfe, Maria
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gapes, Mike
Linton, Martin


Gardiner, Barry
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gerrard, Neil
Lock, David


Gibson, Dr Ian
Love, Andrew


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McAvoy, Thomas


Godman, Dr Norman A
McCabe, Steve


Godsiff, Roger
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Goggins, Paul



Golding, Mrs Llin
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Grocott, Bruce
McIsaac, Shona


Grogan, John
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hain, Peter
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McNulty, Tony


Hancock, Mike
Mactaggart, Fiona


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McWarter, Tony


Healey, John
McWilliam, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mallaber, Judy


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Heppell, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Martlew, Eric


Hill, Keith
Maxton, John


Hinchliffe, David
Meale, Alan


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Merron, Gillian


Hood, Jimmy
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)






Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Singh, Marsha


Miller, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Spellar, John


Mountford, Kali
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mudie, George
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stringer, Graham


Olner, Bill
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Neill, Martin
Stunell, Andrew


Öpik, Lembit
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Organ, Mrs Diana



Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pearson, Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Perham, Ms Linda
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pike, Peter L
Timms, Stephen


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pond, Chris
Todd, Mark


Pope, Greg
Touhig, Don


Pound, Stephen
Truswell, Paul


Powell, Sir Raymond
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Purchase, Ken
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Quinn, Lawrie
Tynan, Bill


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Walley, Ms Joan


Rammed, Bill
Ward, Ms Claire


Rapson, Syd
Wareing, Robert N


Raynsford, Nick
Watts, David


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Webb, Steve


Rendel, David
White, Brian


Rooker, Jeff
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Roy, Frank



Ruane, Chris
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Willis, Phil


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wills, Michael


Ryan, Ms Joan
Winnick, David


Sanders, Adrian
Wise, Audrey


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wood, Mike


Savidge, Malcolm
Woolas, Phil


Sawford, Phil
Worthington, Tony


Sedgemore, Brian
Wyatt, Derek


Shaw, Jonathan



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Mike Hall and


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.


NOES


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)



Baldly, Tony
Chope, Christopher


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Blunt, Crispin
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)



Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Brazier, Julian
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Faber, David


Burns, Simon
Fabricant, Michael


Cash, William
Forth, Rt Hon Eric





Gill, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robertson, Laurence


Gray, James
Ruffley, David


Horam, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Shepherd, Richard


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Swayne, Desmond


Leigh, Edward
Syms, Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Loughton, Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Townend, John


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Tredinnick, David


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tyrie, Andrew


Malins, Humfrey
Viggers, Peter



Wardle, Charles


Mates, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Page, Richard



Paterson, Owen
Tellers for the Noes:


Pickles, Eric
Mr. David Wilshire and


Randall, John
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

That the draft Working Time Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 48.

Division No. 305]
[10.52 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Burnett, John


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Burstow, Paul


Ainger, Nick
Butler, Mrs Christine


Alexander, Douglas
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Allan, Richard
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary



Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Atkins, Charlotte
Caplin, Ivor


Austin, John
Casale, Roger


Baker, Norman
Caton, Martin


Barnes, Harry
Chaytor, David


Barron, Kevin
Chidgey, David


Bayley, Hugh
Clapham, Michael


Beard, Nigel
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Benton, Joe
Clelland, David


Berry, Roger
Clwyd, Ann


Betts, Clive
Coaker, Vernon


Blears, Ms Hazel
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blizzard, Bob
Cohen, Harry


Borrow, David
Coleman, Iain


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Connarty, Michael


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Brake, Tom
Cooper, Yvette


Brand, Dr Peter
Corbett, Robin


Breed, Colin
Corbyn, Jeremy


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Corston, Jean


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cotter, Brian


Browne, Desmond
Cousins, Jim


Burden, Richard
Cox, Tom


Burgon, Colin
Cranston, Ross






Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hurst, Alan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hutton, John


Cummings, John
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Brian


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Denham, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Doran, Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Drew, David
Keetch, Paul


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kemp, Fraser


Edwards, Huw
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Efford, Clive
Khabra, Piara S


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kidney, David


Etherington, Bill
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fearn, Ronnie
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fisher, Mark
Kirkwood, Archy


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Flint, Caroline
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Flynn, Paul
Laxton, Bob


Follett, Barbara
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fyfe, Maria
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gapes, Mike
Lock, David


Gardiner, Barry
Love, Andrew


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McAvoy, Thomas


Gerrard, Neil
McCabe, Steve


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda



Godman, Dr Norman A
McDonagh, Siobhain


Godsiff, Roger
Macdonald, Calum


Goggins, Paul
McDonnell, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Grogan, John
McNulty, Tony


Hain, Peter
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWalter, Tony


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds WE;)
McWilliam, John


Hancock, Mike
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mallaber, Judy


Healey, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hepburn, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Heppell, John
Maxton, John


Hesford, Stephen
Meale, Alan


Hill, Keith
Merron, Gillian


Hinchliffe, David
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hood, Jimmy
Miller, Andrew


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mitchell, Austin


Hope, Phil
Moffatt, Laura


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mountford, Kali





Mudie, George
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mullin, Chris
Snape, Peter


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Spellar, John


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Olner, Bill
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


O'Neill, Martin
Stinchcombe, Paul


Öpik, Lembit
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Organ, Mrs Diana
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stringer, Graham


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pearson, Ian
Stunell, Andrew


Perham, Ms Linda
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pickthall, Colin
Swayne, Desmond


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Plaskitt, James
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pond, Chris
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pope, Greg
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pound, Stephen
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Timms, Stephen


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Tipping, Paddy


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Todd, Mark


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Touhig, Don


Prosser, Gwyn
Truswell, Paul


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Quinn Lawrie
 Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Rammell, Bill
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rapson, Syd
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Raynsford, Nick
Tynan, Bill


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Walley, Ms Joan



Ward, Ms Claire


Rendel, David
Wareing, Robert N


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Watts, David


Rowlands, Ted
Webb, Steve


Roy, Frank
White, Brian


Ruane, Chris
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ruddock, Joan
Wicks, Malcolm


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sanders, Adrian
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Willis, Phil


Savidge, Malcolm
Wills, Michael


Sawford, Phil
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Wise, Audrey


Sheerman, Barry
Wood, Mike


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Woolas, Phil


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Worthington, Tony


Singh, Marsha



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Mike Hall and


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Amess, David
Faber, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fallon, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Flight, Howard


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burns, Simon
Gray, James


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Cash, William
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Leigh, Edward



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Collins, Tim
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Colvin, Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Madel, Sir David



Malins, Humfrey


Evans, Nigel
Mates, Michael






Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Wardle, Charles


Paterson, Owen
Wells, Bowen


Prior, David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Robertson, Laurence
Wilkinson, John


Ruffley, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shepherd, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Tapsell, Sir Peter



Townend, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Tredinnick, David
Mr. David Wilshire and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Licensing and Registered Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 33.

Division No. 306]
[11.3 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Caplin, Ivor


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Casale, Roger


Ainger, Nick
Caton, Martin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chaytor, David


Alexander, Douglas
Chidgey, David


Allan, Richard
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Austin, John
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Baker, Norman
Clelland, David


Barnes, Harry
Clwyd, Ann


Barron, Kevin
Coaker, Vernon


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beard, Nigel
Cohen, Harry


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Coleman, Iain


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Connarty, Michael


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cooper, Yvette


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Berry, Roger
Corston, Jean


Betts, Clive
Cotter, Brian


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cousins, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Cox, Tom


Borrow, David
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cummings, John


Brake, Tom
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brand, Dr Peter
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Breed, Colin
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Darvill, Keith


Browne, Desmond
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Burden, Richard
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Burgon, Colin
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Burnett, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Burstow, Paul
Dean, Mrs Janet


Butler, Mrs Christine
Denham, John


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Doran, Frank



Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Drew, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth





Edwards, Huw
Kidney, David


Efford, Clive
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ellman, Mrs Louise
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Etherington, Bill
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fearn, Ronnie
Kirkwood, Archy


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fisher, Mark
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Laxton, Bob


Flint, Caroline
Leslie, Christopher


Flynn, Paul
Levitt, Tom



Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Follett, Barbara
Linton, Martin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Love, Andrew


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McAvoy, Thomas


Fyfe, Maria
McCabe, Steve


Gapes, Mike
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gardiner, Barry
Macdonald, Calum


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonnell, John


Gerard, Neil
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gibson, Dr Ian
McIsaac, Shona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Goggins, Paul
McNulty, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McWalter, Tony



McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mallaber, Judy


Grocott, Bruce
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Grogan, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Martlew, Eric


Hancock, Mike
Maxton, John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Meale, Alan


Healey, John
Merron, Gillian


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Miller, Andrew


Hepburn, Stephen
Mitchell, Austin


Heppell, John
Moffatt, Laura



Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hesford, Stephen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hill, Keith
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hood, Jimmy
Mountford, Kali


Hope, Phil
Mudie, George


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mullin, Chris


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hurst, Alan
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Illsley, Eric
Olner, Bill


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Neill, Martin


Jamieson, David
Öpik, Lembit


Jenkins, Brian
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Perham, Ms Linda



Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pike Peter L


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pound, Stephen


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prosser, Gwyn


Keetch, Paul
Purchase, Ken


Kemp, Fraser
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Khabra, Piara S
Quinn, Lawrie






Radice, Fit Hon Giles
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rammell, Bill
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rapson, Syd
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raynsford, Nick
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rendel, David
Tipping, Paddy


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Todd, Mark


Rowlands, Ted
Touhig, Don


Roy, Frank
Truswell, Paul


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ruddock, Joan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sanders, Adrian
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Tynan, Bill


Savidge, Malcolm
Walley, Ms Joan


Sawford, Phil
Ward, Ms Claire


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert N


Sheerman, Barry
Watts, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Webb, Steve


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
White, Brian


Singh, Marsha
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Skinner, Dennis
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Spellar, John
Willis, Phil


Squire, Ms Rachel
Winnick, David


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wise, Audrey


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wood, Mike


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Woolas, Phil


Stinchcombe, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin



Stringer, Graham
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stunell, Andrew
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mr. Greg Pope.


NOES


Amess, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Loughton, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Paterson, Owen


Chope, Christopher
Randall, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Shepherd, Richard



Swayne, Desmond


Colvin, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Fabricant, Michael
Townend, John


Fallon, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Viggers, Peter


Gill, Christopher
Wilshire, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Horam, John



Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tellers for the Noes:


Leigh, Edward
Mr. James Gray and


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LEGAL SERVICES

That the draft Chartered Institute of Patent Agents Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 25th October, be approved—[Mr. Clelland.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 27.

Division No. 307]
[11.17 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ainger, Nick
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dalyell, Tam


Alexander, Douglas
Darvill, Keith


Allan, Richard
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Atkins, Charlotte
Dean, Mrs Janet


Austin, John
Denham, John


Baker, Norman
Dobbin, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Donohoe, Brian H


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Bayley, Hugh
Dowd, Jim


Beard, Nigel
Drew, David


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Edwards, Huw


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Efford, Clive


Bennett, Andrew F
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Benton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Berry, Roger
Fearn, Ronnie


Betts, Clive
Reid, Rt Hon Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fisher, Mark


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Borrow, David
Flint, Caroline


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Follett, Barbara


Brand, Dr Peter
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Breed, Colin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Browne, Desmond
Fyfe, Maria


Burden, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Burgon, Colin
Gardiner, Barry


Burnett, John
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Burstow, Paul
Gerrard, Neil


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Godsiff, Roger



Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caton, Martin
Grocott, Bruce


Chaytor, David
Grogan, John


Chidgey, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hancock, Mike


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Healey, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clelland, David
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clwyd, Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coaker, Vernon
Hepburn, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heppell, John


Cohen, Harry
Hesford, Stephen


Coleman, Iain
Hill, Keith


Connarty, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hood, Jimmy


Cooper, Yvette
Hope, Phil


Corbett, Robin
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cotter, Brian
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cousins, Jim
Hurst, Alan


Cox, Tom
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cummings, John
Jamieson, David






Jenkins, Brian
Maxton, John


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Meale, Alan


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Merron, Gillian


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)



Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Miller, Andrew


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Mitchell, Austin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Moffatt, Laura


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Moran, Ms Margaret


Keeble, Ms Sally
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Keetch, Paul
Mountford, Kali


Kemp, Fraser
Mudie, George


Khabra, Piara S
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Kidney, David
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Naysmith, Dr Doug


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Kirkwood, Archy
Olner, Bill


Kumar, Dr Ashok
O'Neill, Martin


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Öpik, Lembit


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Organ, Mrs Diana


Laxton, Bob
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Leslie, Christopher
Palmer, Dr Nick


Levitt, Tom
Pearson, Ian


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Perham, Ms Linda


Linton, Martin
Pickthall, Colin


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Pike, Peter L


Llwyd, Elfyn
Plaskitt, James


Love, Andrew
Pond, Chris


McAvoy, Thomas
Pound, Stephen


McCabe, Steve
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Macdonald, Calum
Prosser, Gwyn


McDonnell, John
Purchase, Ken


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


McIsaac, Shona
Quinn, Lawrie


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rammell, Bill


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Rapson, Syd


McNulty, Tony
Raynsford, Nick


Mactaggart, Fiona
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McWalter, Tony
Rendel, David


McWilliam, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Rowlands, Ted


Mallaber, Judy
Roy, Frank


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Ruane, Chris


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Ruddock, Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Martlew, Eric
Ryan, Ms Joan





Sanders, Adrian
Touhig, Don


Sarwar, Mohammad
Truswell, Paul


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Singh, Marsha
Tynan, Bill


Skinner, Dennis
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wareing, Robert N


Snape, Peter
Watts, David


Southworth, Ms Helen
Webb, Steve


Squire, Ms Rachel
White, Brian


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Steinberg, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Willis, Phil


Stringer, Graham
Winnick, David


Stunell, Andrew
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wood, Mike


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Woolas, Phil


Temple-Morris, Peter
Worthington, Tony


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. Greg Pope and


Todd, Mark
Mr. Kevin Hughes.


NOES


Amess, David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Paterson, Owen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Robertson, Laurence


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Shepherd, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Swayne, Desmond



Tapsell, Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Townend, John


Fallon, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Wilkinson, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Wilshire, David


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)



Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Leigh, Edward
Mr. James Gray and


Loughton, Tim
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Food Standards Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)

Ordered,
That the Order of the House of 22nd July 1999 be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion one and a half hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.

(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any further amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) the Question on any amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended;

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any amendment which is moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages

3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(3) For the purpose of bringing these proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall put forthwith—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair and the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message; and
(c) the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Miscellaneous

4.—(1) This paragraph applies to proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments and proceedings on any further Message from the Lords.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings to which this paragraph applies.

(3) Proceedings to which this paragraph applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which this paragraph applies shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(5) Where proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Urgent matters), commence at a time when proceedings to which this paragraph applies are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.

(6) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings to which this paragraph applies are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Orders of the Day — Food Standards Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 10

POWER TO CARRY OUT OBSERVATIONS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 4, line 32, after ("activities") insert—
("(ba) premises, businesses or operations involved in fish farming;")

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 and 7.

Ms Quin: This group of amendments makes some minor clarifications to the scope of the power to carry out observations in clauses 10 and 11. It includes some important additional safeguards on the powers of entry in both clauses 11 and 14, which the Government agreed in response to concerns raised in the other place.
As to amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, at earlier stages in the House we debated the agency's need to gather representative information on food safety and related matters, subject to the limitations in the Bill and the agency's general duty to act proportionately. The amendments ensure that there are no technical gaps in the powers to carry out observations.
The amendments include a reference to fish farms alongside the existing references to food, agricultural and animal feed businesses and premises. Although it was always intended that fish farms should be covered—because, as hon. Members know, shellfish can be a high-risk product—it was necessary to put the issue beyond doubt. The amendments also clarify the fact that the samples that may be taken during observations include samples from food sources, live animals and plants. The existing text was intended to cover this, but the amendment removes any doubt.
As to amendments Nos. 3 and 7, we have always emphasised that the Bill's powers must be used reasonably and proportionately, with proper regard paid to the needs of businesses. The Bill has safeguards that provide for this, some of which were added following debate in Committee. We also gave assurances that the agency's officers would follow guidance to ensure that they behaved reasonably and followed the principles of better regulation.
Therefore, the Government were happy to accept two additional amendments from the Earl of Radnor relating to the authorisations to exercise powers of entry to undertake observations or enforcement monitoring. They provide that authorisations given to use the powers of entry may include a requirement to follow particular conditions—for example, ensuring that the necessary hygiene precautions are taken, including wearing appropriate protective clothing.
The Government have given a commitment that authorisations will, in practice, require the authorised officer to follow conditions equivalent to those already applicable to enforcement officers under code of practice 9, made under section 40 of the Food Safety Act 1990. That required officers to observe any reasonable food safety precautions that are required by the company or organisation under inspection.
The amendments strengthen the Bill's existing safeguards, and I hope that the House will welcome them.

Mr. James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of the amendments. We welcome clarification of food sources and samples and the further moves in the Bill to emphasise hygiene precautions. We support that sensible measure.
However, I want to make a point about fish farming, relating not only to the fundamental question whether fish farming should be included in the Bill but to the concern expressed in another place that the Bill now refers simply to "fish farming", rather than "commercial fish farming". There are, of course, fish farms that produce fish for ornamental and amenity purposes, and not normally for food. When that concern was expressed in the other place, Baroness Hayman said that, because the Bill related to food safety, the measure obviously related only to commercial fish farms. However, having reflected on that, I hope that the Minister will give the matter a little more thought.
There is no definition of the word "food" in the Bill, because it takes the definition used in the Food Safety Act 1990. The Government have resisted further definition, but for most people food is a matter of individual perception. Although we may not want to eat certain types of fish, people in other parts of the world do. It worries me that the amendment covers any fish farm, when it could be shown that some fish species were being used for food by a particular culture—we are a multicultural society these days.
I accept that it is not the Government's intention to include within the Bill all types of fish farm, but I am concerned that the Bill does not include the description "commercial" or "fish for food" to narrow its scope to those fish farms that produce fish for human consumption.

Dr. Peter Brand: We welcome the amendments and the inclusion of fish farms. I understand the concern of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), but I do not know of many sects or religions that might eat koi carp. On the other hand, I do know of people who catch trout that may well have been fish-farmed earlier in their existence. It makes sense to include fish farms in the Bill.

Mr. David Maclean: I have a small concern about the amendment. Although I welcome the addition of fish farming to the Bill, the definition goes too far and may potentially include fish that are too young.
I understand that there are specialist breeding centres where the fish are spawned and, as small fry, are transported in tanks in their millions to the fish farms or breeding grounds. At that stage, the fish may be given foodstuffs, or canthazaxin or other chemicals. They are


weighed as they begin to put on flesh and therefore become more suitable for human consumption. Of course, it is vital that they and their foodstuffs are monitored and checked, but I am not sure what would be the benefit to the Government or the Food Standards Agency of including the very earliest stages of the fish-breeding process.
That is my simple point. It is not a strong point of principle. Rather, I am not sure of the merit of including those stages in the Bill. I would be happy if the Minister could explain the logic behind that part of the definition, which, in my reading of amendment No. 2, includes those early stages of fish breeding and rearing.

Mr. Owen Paterson: I shall briefly draw the attention of the House to amendment No. 7, and the biggest problem facing many abattoirs, which is the poor quality of the staff, many of whom have come from Spain and do not speak English very well. In an abattoir in my area, a young Spanish fellow attended the dressing of a carcase, and believing that it was that of a bullock, said that the spine should be taken out. The carcase was that of a pig. Such ignorance among many young vets who come in to make up numbers, simply because the word "vétérinaire" has been mistranslated by officials, is causing grievous problems in many abattoirs.
I receive numerous letters from abattoirs on the subject. One letter states that a study has shown that the largest single cause of meat contamination was the inspection process in the slaughterhouse. In another abattoir, the strictest enforcers of hygiene standards are the customers—the men from the supermarkets—which is as it should be. They found that the inspectors in that abattoir were not wearing clean overalls, were going from one designated zone to another and were using contaminated tools.
I welcome amendment No. 7, as it is essential that vets understand the basic principles of hygiene. I regret that some of those in abattoirs do not.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I welcome the inclusion of fish farming. For us in Scotland, fish farming by and large means salmon farming. It is an important industry employing thousands of people in rural communities, but the licensing of such farms has caused considerable consternation among our pelagic, demersal and shellfish fishing communities. It is therefore important that the quality standards that exist in the fish—generally salmon—farms are maintained at a high level, and it is right that there should be inspection of those farms.

Ms Quin: Most of the comments on this group of amendments relate to the amendment on fish farms. I thought I heard one of my colleagues unkindly suggest that some of the comments amounted to red herrings.
Fish farming is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) rightly pointed out, because of the number of fish farms and the employment that they provide for increasing numbers of people.
My understanding is that ornamental fish farms would not be covered by the provision, because the powers of entry can be used only to carry out the agency's responsibilities—that is, for food safety and other consumer interests in relation to food.
I recognise that the inclusion of fish farms has been welcomed. It makes sense that that should be specifically stated in the Bill, as hon. Members have pointed out.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) referred to amendment No.7. I am pleased that he welcomed the amendment, although some of his comments were curious. The people who have powers of entry must respect conditions of hygiene. It is an important issue, but some of the fears that the hon. Gentleman expressed should be covered by other parts of the Bill dealing with the agency's responsibility for training and standards of staff working in such establishments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 12

MONITORING OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 6, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Each annual report of the Agency shall contain a report on its activities during the year in enforcing any relevant legislation for which it is the enforcement authority and its performance in respect of—

(a) any standards under subsection (2) that apply to those activities; and
(b) any objectives relating to those activities that are specified in the statement of objectives and practices under section 22.")

Ms Quin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 15.

Ms Quin: The Government accepted these two amendments, which were tabled by Cross-Bench and Opposition peers. Lords amendment No. 6 relates to the requirement on the agency to report in its annual report on its own performance as an enforcement authority. That relates primarily to the performance of the Meat Hygiene Service, which was extensively debated in the House and by the Special Select Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).
11.45 pm
The Government have made it clear throughout that they believe that it is right that the MHS, which is responsible for enforcement in a key area of food safety, should be part of the agency, but we also made it clear that we believe that it should be subject to rigorous audit of its performance—that point was made strongly by my predecessor—and that its officers should behave reasonably, in accordance with the principles of better regulation.
Amendment No. 6 will put in the Bill the clear requirement that the agency should include in its report to Parliament information on its activities where it acts as an enforcement authority in relation to specific standards which will be set for its performance, and in relation to specific objectives and practices included in the agency's statement of objectives and practices, which, as hon. Members know, is required by clause 22. We have made


it clear that those objectives will include compliance with the better regulation principles. We believe that that will contribute to greater openness about the performance of the MHS, which has been of concern to Members on both sides of the House. I therefore hope that the House will agree that the amendment is helpful and will improve the Bill.
In a similar vein, amendment No. 15 requires that the agency's agreed statement of objectives and practices be laid before Parliament and the devolved legislatures. That will make a helpful contribution to openness. We expect the agency to consult interested bodies on its statement before it is finalised. I stress that the amendment was tabled by the Opposition—by Baroness Byford—and the Government believe that it will improve the Bill.

Mr. Paice: The right hon. Lady is right: the amendment represents an improvement to the Bill—obviously we support it, because it was tabled by my noble Friend—but I must tell her that the improvement is tiny. It goes nowhere towards addressing the real concerns expressed by Conservative Members throughout the earlier stages of the Bill's consideration about the MHS and the dual role of enforcement and monitoring authority that the Food Standards Agency will play. It does not tell us how the two roles will be separated in practice—nor have the Government produced any convincing reason for their rejection of the advice of the Special Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), to which the Minister referred.
We also need to question MHS charges. At present, as I understand it, the Minister has to approve all charges—at least her predecessor regularly told the House that he had not yet approved any rises, so we assume that he had the power to do so if he needed to. If the MHS is to go into the FSA, what controls will there be on charging? If the annual report is published in the way described in the amendment, will it include, for example, separate MHS accounts and a schedule of charges and how they have been arrived at so that people can see transparently what is going on?
Given that a slaughterhouse is closing every week under this Government, it is time that we had much more transparency in respect of the charges made for meat hygiene inspection. The House will be aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food himself has announced studies of comparative costs and charges in abattoirs in other countries. If that matter is to be dealt with by the MHS, is the right hon. Gentleman wasting his time? Will he have any powers to do anything, even if he uncovers evidence showing, as we believe, that British abattoirs are being treated unfairly? If not, and if the Meat Hygiene Service is to have total control over its charging mechanisms, it is essential that it be transparent and that the report for which amendment No. 6 provides covers all those possibilities. We may then be able to put an end to the constant arguments about the level of charges. Under this Government, however, I do not see that happening.

Mr. Michael Jack: My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the Minister both talked about the need for transparency. The Meat Hygiene Service and the Food Standards Agency will deal with some of the most sensitive issues relating to the food chain.
The Minister said that the report would be published and laid before Parliament. She knows, however, that a great number of statutorily required reports are laid before Parliament, but that no effort is made to debate their content. Given the importance of the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and the importance of the work of the Food Standards Agency and the Meat Hygiene Service, will the Minister assure us that the report will not just be laid before Parliament, but tabled for a proper debate in Government time so that we can examine many of the sensitive issues that my hon. Friend outlined?

Dr. Brand: Hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the creation of the Food Standards Agency, because we all see the need to restore confidence in British food. To achieve that, it is essential that we have openness and transparency. That is why I welcome the amendments.
The annual report should not just look back at the events of the previous year, but should look forward and give us a business plan and a budget for the following year. One of our concerns is that the Meat Hygiene Service could take over all the energies and resources of the Food Standards Agency and, so, defeat the very purpose for which the agency was set up. Will the Minister assure us that the report relating to the Meat Hygiene Service will show clearly the resources that the service will use, so that we can see that the other arm of the agency is protected?

Mr. Eric Forth: I am beginning to wonder whether the amendment is totally fatuous. The more I listen to the words of praise echoing around the Chamber about it, the more it occurs to me that it will be utterly useless. The clue to my suspicion came from the Minister, who said that it would contribute to openness. That immediately makes me suspicious, as it is completely meaningless. Matters became even worse when the right hon. Lady said that she expected the agency to consult. There seems to be no obligation on the agency to consult in this part of the process; it is simply a ministerial expectation. That is not good enough.
As if that were not bad enough, the amendment will oblige a copy of the statement approved by the agency to be laid
before Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly"—
"laid before", no more. One can only conclude that there will be a process, possibly of consultation—we do not know; the Minister hopes so, but nothing obliges it—and the agency will reach its own conclusions about its objectives. There will be no outside check on that process. Then, in a grand gesture of openness, the agency will lay its conclusions before Parliaments and Assemblies.
Following the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), there the process ends. A report, about which no consultation was needed, is laid before Parliament. We all know that that could well be a completely meaningless part of the process.
In my more negative moments—there are few, I admit, but every now and again, during debates such as this, a bit of negativity arises—I ask myself what all this means, and where it is leading us. Will it advance the process in any way? Here is yet another piece of paper—another


document. No doubt it will be available in the Vote Office; no doubt Members will be able to apprise themselves of its contents. But will the process go any further? If my right hon. Friend's proposal is not taken up, and if the Minister cannot give us an absolute undertaking that something will complete the process, it will have no meaning.
Why are we all gathered here, praising the amendment—which originated in another place—when, on the face of it, it has no meaning whatever? It constitutes yet another layer of bureaucracy: yet another part of the process, which will add nothing to the ensuring of food safety—or, I think, to the role that the House likes to think it takes upon itself in scrutinising the Government and holding them accountable. There is no provision for scrutiny, or for holding to the Government to account.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I do not know why my right hon. Friend is worried. Like all the other annual reports produced by quangos, this report will be sent to my right hon. Friend as a matter of course, because he is a Member of Parliament. He will pass it quickly across his desk into the nearest wastepaper bin, where it will remain unread by numerous Members of Parliament. What is the point?

Mr. Forth: May I make a plea, following my hon. Friend's remarks? I do not wish to receive a copy of the document; I should be very distressed if I did. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has the gall to suggest that it might be sent by e-mail. I do not know what that is, and I do not know whether I would receive any of it either. What I do not want is for my time to be wasted by my being sent a copy of a document that has so little meaning. If it stops at the Vote Office, at least I will have discretion in regard to whether I wish to peruse it. That would be something.
My plea is this: unless the Minister can reassure us that the amendment will have greater meaning than I have suggested, I think we should reject it. It will provide for an additional layer of bureaucracy and an additional unnecessary procedure that will do nothing to reassure the public about the safety of our food.

Mr. Michael Fallon: The Minister described the amendment as an improvement. I am not sure that it is an improvement; I see little substantial difference between the original subsection (3) and the present subsection (3). Indeed, the key word "performance" in the old subsection is left out of the new subsection.
What really concerns me, however, is the Minister's attempt to defend the amendment on the ground that it strengthens the audit of the Meat Hygiene Service. I think that she used the words "as a regulatory practice". In my view, the real difficulty lies in the fact that we are allowing one regulatory authority to approve the regulatory performance of another. In other words, the audit will not be independent. Feed regulators will be assessing the performance of a food regulation agency, namely the Meat Hygiene Service, and I do not think that that is satisfactory.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I do not think that the amendment

goes far enough. I would have liked to see some kind of independent audit of the performance of the Meat Hygiene Service, not least because it is the key service in relation to charging. When, some years ago, I visited the headquarters of the service in York, I was struck by its complete independence in regard to fees. It was for the Minister to decide in the end, but it was entirely for the MHS to propose.
The amendment does nothing to protect the service's clients against the increases in charges which we have seen in recent years, and could go on seeing. Surely we need a much more independent audit to establish whether the MHS is providing good value for money, and the good regulation that the Minister and the House want.

12 midnight

Mr. Paterson: The Meat Hygiene Service reminds me of a tax farm under the Bourbons. It has a free remit to extend its area of operation and the more it extends that area of operation, the more money it can raise.
I have a copy of its report for last year. It is beautifully printed and expensively produced—and glib. It has a list of targets and—surprise, surprise—a list of results. Each one has the stamp "Achieved". Further on there is a glossy photograph of an employee called John, who has worked for the Meat Hygiene Service since its inception. He says:
The Meat Hygiene Service training courses and videos have enabled me to perform my enforcement duties with confidence. This, combined with good working relations at the plants I visit has enabled to maintain high standards of hygiene and strict compliance with legislation.
That is entirely different from the world portrayed in letters that people have sent me. One letter from an abattoir says that its charges have increased from£300 per year to£17,000 per year. That means inspection fees of£180 per tonne. The letter says:
Were we a large, full-throughput plant, the comparative cost would be around£1 per tonne.
Another letter says:
we are charged almost£40 for these people and they know as much about a turkey as I know about a llama, it makes you want to 'spit', especially when you are aware that the government are seemingly hell bent on increasing these charges, some by as much as a staggering 80 per cent.
We had at our site one particular Iberian who found out after almost two months that the turkeys we exclusively process weren't the chickens he thought they were, and there are many more equally ludicrous examples.
The report serves no purpose. It is purely a publicity pamphlet for the quango. We need an independently audited report, properly debated in Parliament. I should also like a statement on the appeal mechanisms. We hear that in informal discussions with the industry the Government are coming round to the idea of having an appeal mechanism. As we said in Committee, it is not good enough to have the Food Standards Agency in charge of the Meat Hygiene Service. The gamekeeper cannot also act as the poacher. What is the audit mechanism to ensure an independent report? What appeal mechanism is there to allow crushed, benighted little firms to avoid being put out of business by the quango? The number of abattoirs has gone down in the past couple of


years from 4,000 to 350. That has happened partly because of the quango.

Ms Quin: I am somewhat surprised by the content of some of the speeches that I have just heard, because the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), speaking for the Official Opposition, said rather grudgingly that this was a small amendment. Other Opposition Members have described it as fatuous—I think that that was the expression used by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—or meaningless. That is surprising, because the amendment was moved eloquently by Baroness Byford in the other place. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst seems to think it extraordinary that he should be expected to support an amendment put forward by his party. I find it surprising that he does not support it.
Many of the questions that hon. Members have raised were answered by the former Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), in the debate on 22 July. However, given some of the questions that have been raised, it is important to repeat some of the points that he made. He spelled out the separation of roles for the audit of the Meat Hygiene Service. That will be achieved in a number of ways. The veterinary public health unit, which audits the Meat Hygiene Service, will be separated within the Food Standards Agency. There will also be a separate supervisory committee. There are also audits by the European Commission and the state veterinary service, as well as the financial audit by the National Audit Office. I am rather surprised that Opposition Members did not refer to these.
On controls on charging, charges will still be set ultimately by Ministers, as now. Any changes to the charges will be subject to consultation, as now.

Mr. David Drew: Could my hon. Friend assure me that where the private sector is employed by the Meat Hygiene Service, that also will be subject to audit and account?

Ms Quin: As far as I know, it should be. However, the best thing would be for me to write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the letter in the Library, so that he knows the exact position.
On charging, I must stress that the Meat Hygiene Service will continue to produce its own separate accounts—a point raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand).
Of course the House will be able to debate the annual report—and any of the reports contained within that—if it wishes. Owing to the interest across the House in the work of the Meat Hygiene Service, it is obvious that Members will use existing methods to raise concerns and to make sure that the issues presented to them in annual reports can be debated fully.
The Meat Hygiene Service will have to produce its own accounts, and account for the way in which it has used its resources. The agency will consult on its clause 22 statement. These measures all provide excellent

opportunities to deal with the points raised by hon. Members.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.

Clause 14

POWER OF ENTRY FOR MONITORING ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 8, line 2, leave out from ("1991") to ("a") in line 3 and insert
("(in this Act referred to as "the 1991 Order") or orders or regulations made under it is (by virtue of Article 26(1A), (1B), (2), (3) or (3A) of that Order)")

Ms Quin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11, 17, 18, 20, 24, 27, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 45, 47 and 48.

Ms Quin: The amendment, and the others in the group, are all technical drafting amendments which deal with Northern Ireland aspects of the Bill.
The Bill has been passing through Parliament at a time of considerable uncertainty over the future of the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland. As the agency will operate in Northern Ireland, it is important that we review the text of the Bill at the latest possible moment to ensure that the references to Northern Ireland are all correct. That is why the Government made these changes in the House of Lords, which were accepted.
One important amendment in the group is No. 35, which ensures that the powers will take proper effect—both under the existing transferred power, and afterwards, once the devolution settlement has come into force and the Northern Ireland First Minister and Deputy First Minister have taken up their powers. Most of the other amendments are minor drafting points that clarify the references to Northern Ireland legislation.
The amendments to the schedules make changes to Northern Ireland legislation to parallel proposed amendments to existing Great Britain legislation which are already contained in the schedules to the Bill. In particular, the Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 will be amended to parallel amendments to the Food Safety Act 1990, and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 will be amended to reflect changes to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and to provide consistency.
Although the amendments include a lot of new text, they do nothing new in policy terms. They will simply make equivalent changes to Northern Ireland legislation. As a whole, therefore, they will ensure that, when the agency is established, there is a consistent legislative framework in place across the United Kingdom, regardless of whether the devolution settlement is fully in place.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11 agreed to.

Clause 19

PUBLICATION ETC. BY THE AGENCY OF ADVICE AND INFORMATION

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 9, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) The exercise of that power is subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.")

Ms Quin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 13, 14, 19, 23, 26, 28, 29 and 42.

Ms Quin: This group of amendments is composed largely of minor drafting points. However, I should like to comment briefly on Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which were tabled by the Opposition in another place on Report, and agreed to by the Government.
The Government made it clear that our intention was that the Data Protection Act 1998 should apply, so that in using its powers to publish under clause 19, the agency should not be able to disclose personal data. The amendments make a useful clarification of that point. The inclusion of a special reference to the 1998 Act makes it absolutely clear that the agency will be subject to the data protection principles that the Act contains, and that the agency must, therefore, maintain the personal privacy of individuals about whom it has obtained information in the course of its work.
As I said, the amendments largely concern technical drafting points. Lords amendments Nos. 14, 19, 28 and 29 do not change the Bill's substance at all. Lords amendment No. 42, however, makes it absolutely clear that the agency will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration by adding the ombudsman to the list of bodies covered by the PCA.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 24

DIRECTIONS RELATING TO BREACH OF DUTY OR TO INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 12, line 36, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) by the Scottish Ministers (in so far as it is exercisable by them within devolved competence or by virtue of an Order in Council made under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998); and")

Ms Quin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 31.

Ms Quin: This group of amendments includes some important technical points arising from devolution. As we have explained throughout the Bill's passage, the agency is being established as a United Kingdom body, with the aim of achieving across the United Kingdom a consistent approach to food safety. However, food safety and

standards are a devolved matter. We therefore have to ensure that the Bill correctly reflects the position following the devolution legislation, and takes account of the appropriate devolved responsibilities.

Mr. Paice: The Bill must be right in addressing the devolution issue. I should simply like to challenge the Minister on Lords amendment No. 16, which would amend clause 24. Clause 24 itself refers to clause 23, and the fact that the powers would be given to Scottish Ministers if it appeared to them that
there has been a serious failure by the Agency
…to comply with section 23".
Clause 23(2) itself states that
The Agency, in considering whether or not to exercise any power, or the manner in which to exercise any power, shall take into account (among other things)—
(a) the nature and magnitude of any risks to public health".
That provision brings us immediately to the current crisis of confidence over the Government's policy on beef on the bone. If devolution does what the Bill says, if the arrangements are separate for each country and if the Lords amendment gives Scottish Ministers competence to consider whether there has been
a serious failure by the Agency
to take into account the nature and magnitude of those risks, what will happen after the agency is created?
Now, despite the advice that he has received from the chief medical officer, the English Minister refuses to lift that absurd ban, on the basis that his Scottish counterpart says that he does not think it safe for Scots to eat beef on the bone. That is the price of devolution.
12.15 am
It seems odd that the Bill establishes, and a Government amendment reaffirms, Scottish competence to deal with such issues and to take into account the nature and magnitude of the risks to public health, which is the very core of the beef on the bone issue, while what the Government are actually doing—or rather, failing to do, which is to lift the absurd ban—shows a total disregard of the principles in the Bill.

Dr. Godman: In relation to Lords amendment No. 16, I have every confidence in the Scottish medical officer of health—just as I have every confidence in the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament—to ensure that the Bill and the regulations are administered fairly and effectively.
However, what would happen if Ministers in the Scottish Parliament expressed concern about the way in which fish farms were inspected by the agency? A few minutes ago, I pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State how important that industry is to our coastal and island communities. What powers does the Scottish Parliament possess to change or introduce regulations governing such access to fish farms or other Scottish enterprises? We may require some sort of concordat, because Scottish Ministers and Members of the Scottish Parliament may have far greater knowledge of the local conditions surrounding such industries than do Ministers or Members here—with the obvious and estimable exception of Scottish Members of this Parliament.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I welcome the amendments in so far as they


clarify the position of the Scottish Parliament. None the less, I hark back to what I said on Second Reading—that if Scotland had been allowed to legislate for itself on food standards, neither the amendments nor the original clauses would have been necessary in the first place. The Government have embarked on devolution and the House has devolved the oversight of food standards, yet they do not seem prepared to accept the consequences and let the devolved Parliaments legislate in their own way. So be it. They have chosen this route, so I welcome the amendments.
To follow what the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, I do not believe that anything in the Bill specifically states that the Scottish Parliament may in due course choose to legislate separately on such matters.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Nineteen minutes past 12 in the morning is not perhaps the most felicitous time to ask this question, so I preface it by saying that the Minister may wish to reply by putting a note in the Library. A judgment on beef on the bone has been made in the sheriff court in Scotland—a judgment that is very awkward from the Government's point of view. Ministers know that that judgment opens a Pandora's box of problems, so if they cannot comment off the top of their head, will they put a note in the Library about their attitude to the sheriff court's finding?

Dr. Brand: I shall not enter into the beef on the bone debate, but I invite the Minister to clarify the mechanism that will be used. As I understand it, the Food Standards Agency will give advice to Ministers and will publish that advice. I imagine that the relevant Ministers in the relevant nations will be free to reject that advice, or to accept it. If that is the case, clearly it would be acceptable to have beef on the bone in Wales, but not in England—I am not sure what the Scots want to do.

Sir Patrick Cormack: We should have it everywhere.

Dr. Brand: That is a personal opinion. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on my point.

Ms Quin: I have been somewhat surprised by the wide-ranging nature of the debate on what is a technical amendment. The amendment relates to Executive devolution under the Scotland Act 1998 and we cannot reopen the debate on the devolution settlement, as some of the contributions appeared to try to tempt me to do. Legislative responsibilities for food safety and standards, including beef on the bone, were already devolved by Parliament in the Scotland Act 1998. The issue of beef on the bone has been debated several times and will doubtless be raised again in various ways.
Amendment No. 16 is simply a technical amendment which will ensure that Scottish Ministers have power of direction on matters within their devolved competence, including matters that are the subject of Executive devolution, as well as directly under the Scotland Act 1998. It will make no significant difference to the powers of direction, but it is necessary for consistency within the general framework of devolution in Scotland.
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has a felicitous sense of timing, but my understanding is that the case he mentioned is still before the courts and, therefore, I cannot comment on it even though he tempted me to do so. Whether I am relieved about that, I will keep to myself.
We have had an interesting debate, but it has ranged much wider than the technical nature of the amendment would suggest. None the less, I hope that the amendment will gain the approval of the House.

Mr. Dalyell: For all the levity, the case I mentioned is a serious issue. When the courts finally come to a judgment, MAFF will have to make a statement on it.

Ms Quin: I was not commenting on the seriousness or otherwise of the issue. I was simply saying that it is currently before the courts.

Mr. Fallon: As I understand Lords amendment No. 22, it would allow the Scottish Parliament to confer an additional function of its choosing on the Food Standards Agency, which may be exercisable in Scotland, but presumably, once conferred, may also be exercisable in England. Can the Minister explain the amendment?

Ms Quin: Lords amendment No. 22 is intended simply to remove any doubt that may arise about the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly to modify the functions of the agency in their own areas of jurisdiction, which have already been established. That does not necessarily mean that Scotland or Northern Ireland would do something different from England and Wales. However, because Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legislative competence on food safety and standards matters, we need to ensure that there is no doubt about their ability to make changes to the agency's functions which have been agreed across the UK.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 24 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 19, line 28, at end insert—
("(2A) In this Act the expression "interests of consumers in relation to food" includes (without prejudice to the generality of that expression) interests in relation to the labelling, marking, presenting or advertising of food, and the descriptions which may he applied to food.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Ms Quin.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment (a).

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I shall speak to amendment (a) with confidence and with the full support of the National Farmers Union, which has written to me and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) saying that the amendment would open the door to better country-of-origin labelling, and that that would assist consumers to buy British, on the basis of quality, origin, taste and safety.
The amendment would also encourage action better to inform consumers, through labelling and otherwise, about how the product has reached the supermarket shelf.


Farmers producing to the high welfare standards required by British law in the pig industry, for example, could then command the premium that they well deserve. We urge the Government to grab this opportunity, at this late stage of the Bill's progress through the House, to give the Food Standards Agency the power to regulate the sourcing of food in this country.
On repeated occasions during the Bill's progress, Opposition Members have tried to get the question of labelling incorporated into the FSA. It seems ironic that one of the key reasons for bringing the agency into being is to protect public health from food risks, yet failure to give the agency responsibility for food sourcing and the labelling of food will simply prevent members of the public from protecting themselves against real or perceived risks. That is why we urge the Government most strongly to consider accepting the amendment, even at this very late stage.
The fact that the co-director of the Food Commission has described present labelling arrangements as a shambles should serve to encourage the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to go further than his most recent statements about changing the guidelines on labelling. Indeed, speaking on BBC1's "Breakfast with Frost" programme on 24 October, he said:
I do think if people check where the product is sourced from they can make informed choices.
However, people cannot do that. At the height of the Belgian dioxin scare, my nanny bought chicken breast from the local supermarket for my children's tea. From the label, there was no way of knowing where the meat had come from, so I followed the Minister's good advice of "when in doubt, throw it out".
The Minister went on, in his interview on the "Breakfast with Frost" programme, to state:
My personal choice is to look for the Meat and Livestock Commission's 'Assured British' label".
Conservative Members wholeheartedly support that scheme, but its impact is limited. Out of curiosity, I went to my local supermarket and hunted—in vain—for British smoked back bacon. There was Dutch and Danish bacon of that variety, as well as many packs with no country of origin identified at all. To work, the Assured British scheme must be backed by statute. That is one of the strong reasons why we are looking for the incorporation of labelling into the work of the Food Standards Agency.
The weakness of the Minister's announcement of 27 October about amending the guidelines is that it does not place any legal obligation on retailers to follow the recommended good practice regarding labelling as to country of origin. Without some extra obligation, as opposed to mere advice, there must be doubt about how effective the proposed changes will be.
I hope that the Government will make the concession implied in the amendment and give the very important responsibility for the sourcing of food to the Food Standards Agency. Failure to do that will lead us to press the amendment to a vote.

Mr. David Heath: I support amendment (a), although, as I am no curmudgeon, I must point out that the Government have been responsive to many points made here and in the other place. They have gone a long way towards improving the Bill, but the amendment asks them to go one step further.
The amendment qualifies the definition of the interests of consumers in relation to food, a concept referred to throughout the Bill, notably in clauses 2, 6, 7 and 8. It defines the work of the agency in protecting the public from risk, developing policies, providing advice and information and obtaining, compiling and keeping under review such information. It is right that the agency should take account of the sourcing of food when considering those matters.
To persuade me that that should not be stated in the Bill, the Minister may suggest that it is unnecessary because the point is already covered. If that is so, why is amendment No. 25 felt necessary, as it, too, defines the terms within which advice should be given? Alternatively, the Minister may suggest that amendment (a) might prejudice the agency's work. I cannot accept that, as the amendment would provide an important adjunct to the agency's core work. A further suggestion might be that the amendment would not be in the interests of consumers, an idea with which I would have to differ most strongly. It is greatly in the interests of consumers that they should know the source of food. It is a happy coincidence that the interests of consumers and producers are the same in this case.
The Minister has mentioned the pig industry, but one of the major reasons for that industry's parlous state is the high welfare standards that prevail in the United Kingdom. Those standards are quite proper, but they are not matched in the pig industries of our principal competitors abroad, and our pig producers are therefore at a constant commercial disadvantage in the supermarkets if consumers cannot make a choice informed by knowledge of the source of the food and the conditions under which it was produced.
In the interests of consumers, producers and transparency, we should avoid the type of confusion on which there have been recent exchanges during Question Time. Earlier this month, I pointed out that St. Ivel Shape yoghurt—not a product that I buy regularly—is made in France while Carte D'or ice cream is made in Gloucester. How is the consumer supposed to understand that?

Mr. James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. St. Ivel yoghurt is made in my constituency, at Wootton Bassett.

Mr. Heath: St. Ivel yoghurt is made in many places, and the brand to which I have referred is made in France. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. It is a tragedy that even an hon. Member who represents the area where a product is made may not be aware that it is also sourced from another country, but that fact highlights the very difficulty that the consumer faces when he or she goes to the supermarket. I sometimes do the shopping, rather than sending a nanny to do it, and I, like many people, find labelling confusing.
If the Minister cannot respond adequately to these points, I fear that we shall support amendment (a), which is important to our primary producers.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I wish to make two brief points following the convincing argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). I believe in free trade, and it is terribly important that people should be told the truth.


However, as one of the older Members in the House, I can recall other occasions on which we have discussed proposals that seemed sensible, sound and absolutely super, only to find to our horror that we could not in fact put them into practice. In such cases, we have ended up spending millions of pounds in compensation.
I remember Members waving their Order Papers over the question of which ships were allowed to fish under the British quota. We all thought it was splendid, but now it is costing us a lot of money. I have a simple question for my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and the Minister: are we allowed to do this sort of thing? Sadly, I find that in Parliament these days, there are many things that we would like to do but are not allowed to do because, if we did, we would be fined horrendous sums or put in the equivalent of a Euro-prison.
I shop in a store called Asda, of which hon. Members may have heard. I always intend to buy New Zealand lamb but, unfortunately, I am not allowed to, not because of labelling but because of National Farmers Union pressure. The NFU is so concerned about overproduction that we are not allowed to buy from New Zealand any more. That is sad because whenever we have been in trouble, our friends from New Zealand have always been there to help us.
I have a horrible feeling that our basic problem is overproduction, not labelling. There is so much food. We are producing more and more, but, sadly, people are eating less and less. I am told that the continentals eat 2 per cent. less every year. The crucial question is whether we are allowed to label continental food according to its origin.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is very pro-British and made it abundantly clear that he did not want to buy any more French food. The trouble is that, as I understand it, we are not allowed to determine whether food comes from France, so it will be hard to help him. I hope that my hon. Friends will not end up in another horrible mess where we have to pay more Euro-fines. Let us find out whether we are entitled to label food as coming from France, Germany or Italy. I understand that, under a derogation, we are allowed to say whether something comes from Britain or outside the European Economic Community, but not to give people the opportunity of knowing which part of the EEC something comes from.
My point may seem minor, but bearing in mind the horrendous fines that we have had to pay and the undermining of our freedom to decide things in this House, before we do something that we know to be sound, sensible and reasonable and that would support a freedom, let us find out whether we are allowed to do it. One of the great tragedies in this House is that we spend a great deal of time talking about things that we are not allowed to do. We have debates on fishing or the age of homosexual consent, over which we have no power at all. Let us not make another blunder. Before taking the final plunge and approving this superb amendment, which was tabled for the best of reasons, let us find out if we can do it.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. In a previous

debate, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food highlighted the importance of having meaningful labelling of our food. That must mean a statement of its source. Labelling should state the country of origin of food. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, the public need to know so that they can make informed choices between, for example, beef fed in this country on natural rations and that from cattle that we are told are fed on sewage sludge elsewhere, or between pigmeat produced in this country to high animal health and welfare standards and that produced in countries where standards are much lower.
Not only do the public need to know, they have a right to know where their food was produced. While I am sure that the Government will try to tighten the present labelling regulations, if they stop short of showing the country of origin on the product, they will not be serving the public interest properly. In the same earlier debate, the Government said that on issues of animal welfare, Parliament had listened and legislated and reflected what public opinion wanted in the legislation. That was democracy at work—the people told us what they wanted; Parliament reacted accordingly and legislation followed.
At present, because there is heightened interest in food, the British people want to know the country of origin of the food that they eat. In other words, the same conditions apply. The same people who wanted meat to be produced from animals bred under higher welfare standards now want products to be labelled with the country of origin. Unless the Government intend to suspend the rules of democracy, they should accept the amendment.

Mr. Peter Bradley: Interesting though it is to know the country of origin of the food on the shelves of our stores, what the consumer wants is an assurance that the food is fit to consume—whatever the country of origin. What assurances can my right hon. Friend the Minister of State give the House that any food—whether in the supermarkets or in the corner shop—meets those standards? That is the best way to give the consumer confidence that the food is fit to eat; it is also the best way to ensure that British farmers are competing on a level playing field.

Ms Quin: I am not surprised that amendment (a) and amendment No. 25 have provoked a lively debate. I know full well that Members on both sides of the House take a keen interest in the issue of labelling. I understand and sympathise with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) when she introduced amendment (a). She and I are anxious to examine labels when we shop. Since taking on my present portfolio, I have become most concerned not only about labelling but about its accuracy, and about the problems caused by misleading labelling.

Mr. Ian Bruce: If the right hon. Lady has been into supermarkets, she will be aware that, before the small packs are put on to the shelf, the product usually arrives in a large pack. There is much scope for someone in the back of the shop to decide what label to put on the packs. I hope that the Food Standards Agency will examine exactly what is put on the labels after the main pack has come into the supermarket.

Ms Quin: It is extremely clear from our debates on the matter that the Food Standards Agency is able to consider


labelling generally and its importance to the consumer, both in terms of freedom of choice—a matter mentioned by several hon. Members—and to avoid consumers being misled by labels. During the passage of the Bill, many examples of the problems of misleading labelling were given by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by Members in the other place. Arguments about the dangers of inadequate labelling—especially of substances that could provoke allergies—were well and strongly made during the debate in the other place.
I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for Meriden did not give the Government more credit for accepting the amendment tabled in the other place by the Baroness Byford, the Opposition spokesperson. To her credit, she was extremely active in promoting the labelling issue.

Mr. Paice: It was the Government's amendment.

Ms Quin: The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) says that it is the Government's amendment, but the amendment to which I referred was tabled by the Opposition in the other place. The amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Meriden is a further amendment to that amendment. I am surprised that the hon. Lady did not welcome it more enthusiastically. I am grateful that hon. Members of other parties recognise how active the Government have been in respect of labelling.

Mr. Paice: For the record, the amendment was tabled by Baroness Hayman, whose speech appears at column 909—I do not have the exact date—of that part of the House of Lords' consideration of the Bill. It might have been tabled in response to pressure from Conservatives, but the wording is the Government's, which is why we want to amend it.

Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the amendment was the initiative of Baroness Byford, to whom I give credit. It is true that she agreed it with the Government, but for the Opposition now to stand back from the amendment strikes me as incredible. The least that the hon. Member for Meriden could do is give more generous recognition to the way in which the Government bowed before the concern expressed in the other place.
The Conservatives have only discovered an enthusiasm for labelling in opposition. The Labour party has been enthusiastic and active on the issue both in opposition and in government. That is the clear difference between us. Ministers have explained on numerous occasions that the Food Standards Agency will be responsible for policy and advice on labelling matters to Ministers and the public. We are entirely satisfied that the Bill provides the necessary powers for the agency to take a full and active role in that matter, through its role in protecting the interests of consumers in relation to food.
When we accepted the ideas advanced by Baroness Byford in another place, we did so in a way that was consistent with the wording of the regulation-making power in section 16 of the Food Safety Act 1990. That is important if we are not to create confusion or uncertainty about the scope of the agency's role in that matter. The Opposition amendment to which the hon. Member for

Meriden spoke would expand our amendment and create inconsistency within the legislation in respect of the main regulation power relating to labelling. Therefore, we believe that it is inappropriate.
I understand the concern expressed by various hon. Members about improved country-of-origin labelling on foods. The Government, too, are concerned and we are active at European level in that respect. That answers in part the points raised by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). However, labelling is not an area in which we have a free hand, as the hon. Gentleman hinted and as the Opposition Front Benchers have not been prepared to recognise in their approach to the amendment. We need to get agreement at European level on various aspects of labelling, although voluntary labelling is possible.
Given the vigilance of the hon. Member for Meriden in looking for labels in shops, she will know that country-of-origin labelling is becoming increasingly common, especially on meat and meat products. I welcome that. The snag is that the labelling is not always accurate, which is why the arguments on misleading labelling are so important.
We have to be careful not to impose on the agency duties that it is unable to perform—a point raised by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East. We have to recognise the limitations prevailing within the single market on unilateral changes to labelling, while taking every opportunity to give consumers the information that they need, including information on country of origin.
The effect of the Opposition amendment would be wider than simply inserting in the Bill a requirement for country-of-origin rules. Under it, the agency would be given a remit encompassing general issues of sourcing—the hon. Member for Meriden appears to agree with that. However, some issues may be outwith the agency's responsibility. The agency cannot have overall responsibility for sourcing because that is often based on commercial decisions, such as availability and seasonality, and has nothing to do with food safety and quality. They are the issues for which the agency is responsible.
Although I understand and sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, for the technical reason that I have given and in light of its wider definition of sourcing, it is not appropriate to include the amendment in the Bill in its present form. The amendment has been introduced at a very late stage. We conceded generously to the concerns about labelling that were expressed in the other place—a fact that I hope the hon. Lady will recognise and welcome.

Mr. Peter Bradley: The Minister is correct to point out that we are debating a Food Standards Bill and a Food Standards Agency, not a food sourcing agency. Can she assure the House that imported food in our shops will meet the same standards of animal welfare and food hygiene as home-grown and home-produced food? That is the best way both to give consumers information on which they can base an informed choice and to ensure that domestic farmers operate on a level playing field.

Ms Quin: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point, to which he made a slightly different allusion earlier.
We are governed by both national and European requirements in this area. There are European standards for food quality and safety, which we apply. In certain


cases, we also apply higher national standards, which is permissible. However, we cannot block imports from other European Union countries when there are agreed European standards. That refers to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East.
There are recognised safety standards within the European Commission that countries outside the European Union are required to meet before they can import to the EU. The EU is becoming increasingly interested in food safety, and European Commission President Prodi has advanced ideas for a European food standards agency, authority or some kind of mechanism to ensure that European consumers' general concerns for both safety and quality within the internal market are satisfied properly in future. We want to contribute constructively to that debate.
We believe that the Government's record on labelling is second to none, and vastly superior to the woeful record of the Conservatives during 18 years in office. We do not need to take advice from the Opposition, and I hope that the hon. Lady will reflect on the fact that, both technically and in substance, the amendment is not appropriate to the Bill.

Mrs. Spelman: The Opposition regret that, like her predecessors, the Minister is unwilling to incorporate in the Food Standards Bill this important amendment about the labelling part of sourcing. For that reason, we shall press the matter to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 266.

Division No. 308]
[12.54 am


AYES


Allan, Richard
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Amess, David
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James



Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Duncan, Alan


Bercow, John
Evans, Nigel


Beresford, Sir Paul
Faber, David


Blunt, Crispin
Fabricant, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Flight, Howard


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brady, Graham
Fox, Dr Liam


Brand, Dr Peter
Fraser, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Garnier, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gibb, Nick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gill, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burnett, John
Gray, James


Burns, Simon
Green, Damian


Burstow, Paul
Greenway, John


Butterfill, John
Grieve, Dominic


Cash, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hammond, Philip



Hawkins, Nick


Chidgey, David
Hayes, John


Chope, Christopher
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Collins, Tim
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Gerald (Aidershot)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cotter, Brian
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)





Jenkin, Bernard
Ruffley, David


Key, Robert
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
St Aubyn, Nick


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lansley, Andrew
Shepherd, Richard


Leigh, Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Letwin, Oliver
Soames, Nicholas


Lidington, David
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Llwyd, Elfyn
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Loughton, Tim
Streeter, Gary


Luff, Peter
Stunell, Andrew


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Swayne, Desmond


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Syms, Robert


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Malins, Humfrey
Townend, John


Mates, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Trend, Michael


May, Mrs Theresa
Tyrie, Andrew



Viggers, Peter


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Wardle, Charles


Moss, Malcolm
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholls, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Ottaway, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Paice, James
Willetts, David


Paterson, Owen
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Pickles, Eric
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Prior, David
Woodward, Shaun


Randall, John
Yeo, Tim


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rendel, David



Robathan, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robertson, Laurence
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne
)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Dane
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Caplin, Ivor


Ainger, Nick
Casale, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caton, Martin


Alexander, Douglas
Chaytor, David


Allen, Graham
Clapham, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Austin, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Bayley, Hugh
Clwyd, Ann


Beard, Nigel
Coaker, Vernon


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cohen, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Coleman, Iain


Bennett, Andrew F
Connarty, Michael


Benton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Berry, Roger
Cooper, Yvette


Betts, Clive
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blears, Ms Hazel
Corston, Jean


Blizzard, Bob
Cousins, Jim


Borrow, David
Cox, Tom


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Cummings, John


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Browne, Desmond
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Burden, Richard
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Burgon, Colin
Dalyell, Tam


Butler, Mrs Christine
Darvill, Keith


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)






Dean, Mrs Janet
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Dobbin, Jim
Linton, Martin


Donohoe, Brian H
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Doran, Frank
Love, Andrew


Drew, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Efford, Clive
McCabe, Steve


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McDonagh, Siobhain


Etherington, Bill
Macdonald, Calum


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McDonnell, John


Fisher, Mark
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McIsaac, Shona


Flint Caroline
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Flynn, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew


Follett, Barbara
McNulty, Tony


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mactaggart fiona


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McWalter, Tony


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McWilliam, John


Fyfe, Maria
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gapes, Mike
Mallaber, Judy


Gardiner, Barry
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Martlew, Eric


Godman, Dr Norman A
Maxton, John


Godsiff, Roger
Meale, Alan


Goggins, Paul
Merron, Gillian


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Moffatt, Laura


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Grogan, John
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mountford, Kali


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mudie, George


Healey, John
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hepburn, Stephen
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Heppell, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hesford, Stephen
O'Hara, Eddie


Hill, Keith
Olner, Bill


Hinchliffe, David
O'Neill, Martin


Hope, Phil
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hopkins, Kelvin
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Perham, Ms Linda


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pickthall, Colin


Hurst, Alan
Pike, Peter L


Iddon, Dr Brian
Plaskitt, James


Illsley, Eric
Pond, Chris


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pope, Greg


Jamieson, David
Pound, Stephen


Jenkins, Brian
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Purchase, Ken



Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rammell, Bill


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rapson, Syd


Keeble, Ms Sally
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kemp, Fraser
Rowlands, Ted


Khabra, Piara S
Roy, Frank


Kidney, David
Ruane, Chris


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Sarwar, Mohammad


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Savidge, Malcolm


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Sawford, Phil


Laxton, Bob
Sedgemore, Brian


Leslie, Christopher
Sheerman, Barry


Levitt, Tom
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)





Singh, Marsha
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Snape, Peter
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Tynan, Bill


Squire, Ms Rachel
Walley, Ms Joan


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Ward, Ms Claire


Steinberg, Gerry
Wareing, Robert N


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
watts, David



White, Brian


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin



Stringer, Graham
Williams Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Winnick, David


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wise, Audrey


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wood, Mike


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Woolas, Phil


Tipping, Paddy
Worthington, Tony


Todd, Mark



Touhig, Don
Tellers for the Noes:


Truswell, Paul
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Mr. Mike Hall.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being one and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the supplemental allocation of time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Ms Quin.]

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 9.

Division No. 309]
[1.8 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Butler, Mrs Christine


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Alexander, Douglas
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Allan, Richard
Caplin, Ivor


Allen, Graham
Casale, Roger


Ashton, Joe
Caton, Martin


Atherton, Ms Candy
Chaytor, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Clapham, Michael


Austin, John
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Barnes, Harry
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Beard, Nigel
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clelland, David


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clwyd, Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Coaker, Vernon


Bennett, Andrew F
Coffey, Ms Ann


Benton, Joe
Cohen, Harry


Berry, Roger
Coleman, Iain


Betts, Clive
Connarty, Michael


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blizzard, Bob
Cooper, Yvette


Borrow, David
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Corston, Jean


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cotter, Brian


Brand, Dr Peter
Cousins, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Cox, Tom


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Browne, Desmond
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Burden, Richard
Cummings, John


Burgon, Colin
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Burnett, John
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Burstow, Paul
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire






Darvill, Keith
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Laxton, Bob


Dean, Mrs Janet
Leslie, Christopher


Dobbin, Jim
Levitt, Tom


Donohoe, Brian H
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Doran, Frank
Linton, Martin


Drew, David
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Efford, Clive
Llwyd, Elfyn


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Love, Andrew


Etherington, Bill
McAvoy, Thomas.


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McCabe, Steve


Fisher, Mark
McDonagh, Siobhain


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Macdonald, Calum


Flint, Caroline
McDonnell, John


Flynn, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Follett, Barbara
McIsaac, Shona


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McNulty, Tony


Fyfe, Maria
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gapes, Mike
McWalter, Tony


Gardiner, Barry
McWilliam, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gerrard, Neil
Mallaber, Judy


Gibson, Dr Ian
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Godsiff, Roger
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Goggins, Paul
Martlew, Eric


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maxton, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Merron, Gillian


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Grogan, John
Miller, Andrew


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Moffatt, Laura


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Moran, Ms Margaret


Healey, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mountford, Kali


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hepburn, Stephen
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Heppell, John
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hesford, Stephen
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hill, Keith
O'Hara, Eddie


Hinchliffe, David
Olner, Bill


Hope, Phil
O'Neill, Martin


Hopkins, Kelvin
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hoyle, Lindsay
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Simon (Southward N)
Perham, Ms Linda


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pickthall, Colin


Hurst, Alan
Pike, Peter L


Iddon, Dr Brian
Plaskitt, James


Illsley, Eric
Pond, Chris


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pope, Greg


Jamieson, David
Pound, Stephen


Jenkins, Brian
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Purchase, Ken



Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rammell, Bill


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rapson, Syd


Keeble, Ms Sally
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kemp, Fraser
Rendel, David


Khabra, Piara S
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kidney, David
Rowlands, Ted


Kilfoyle, Peter
Roy, Frank


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ruane, Chris


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ruddock, Joan





Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Todd, Mark


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Touhig, Don


Ryan, Ms Joan
Truswell, Paul


Sarwar, Mohammad
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Singh, Marsha
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Skinner, Dennis
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Ward, Ms Claire


Snape, Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Southworth, Ms Helen
Watts, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
White, Brian


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Winnick, David


Stringer, Graham
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stunell, Andrew
Wise, Audrey


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wood, Mike


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Woolas, Phil


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Worthington, Tony


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. Mike Hall.




NOES


Fabricant, Michael
Leigh, Edward


Fallon, Michael
Paterson, Owen



Wilshire, David


Gill, Christopher



Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Tellers for the Noes:


Gray, James
Mr. Eric Forth and


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the remaining Lords amendments:—

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 11.

Division No. 310]
[1.20 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ainger, Nick
Brand, Dr Peter


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Alexander, Douglas
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Allan, Richard
Browne, Desmond


Allen, Graham
Burden, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Burgon, Colin


Atherton, Ms Candy
Burnett, John


Atkins, Charlotte
Burstow, Paul


Austin, John
Butler, Mrs Christine


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beard, Nigel
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Caplin, Ivor


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Casale, Roger


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Caton, Martin


Bennett, Andrew F
Chaytor, David


Benton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Berry, Roger
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Betts, Clive
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blizzard, Bob
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Borrow, David
Clelland, David






Clwyd, Ann
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vernon
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hope, Phil


Cohen, Harry
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coleman, Iain
Hoyle, Lindsay


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cooper, Yvette
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hurst, Alan


Corston, Jean
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cotter, Brian
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cox, Tom
Jamieson, David


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jenkins, Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchunch)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Cummings, John
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)



Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dean, Mrs Janet
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dobbin, Jim
Kemp, Fraser


Donohoe, Brian H
Khabra, Piara S


Doran, Frank
Kidney, David


Drew, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Efford, Clive
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Etherington, Bill
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Reid, Rt Hon Frank
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fisher, Mark
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Laxton, Bob


Flint, Caroline
Leslie, Christopher


Flynn, Paul
Levitt, Tom


Follett, Barbara
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Fit Hon Derek
Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fyfe, Maria
Love, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
McAvoy, Thomas


Gardiner, Barry
McCabe, Steve


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gerrard, Neil
Macdonald, Calum


Gibson, Dr Ian
McDonnell, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Godman, Dr Norman A
McIsaac, Shona


Godsiff, Roger
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Goggins, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
McNulty, Tony


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McWilliam, John


Grogan, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mallaber, Judy


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Healey, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frame)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Martlew, Eric


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Maxton, John


Hepburn, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Heppell, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hesford, Stephen
Miller, Andrew





Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mountford, Kali
Squire, Ms Rachel


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Steinberg, Gerry


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


O'Hara, Eddie
Stinchcombe, Paul


Olner, Bill
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Neill, Martin
Stringer, Graham


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stunell, Andrew


Palmer, Dr Nick
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pearson, Ian:
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pickthall, Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pike, Peter L
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Plaskitt, James
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pond, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Pope, Greg
Todd, Mark


Pound, Stephen
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Truswell, Paul


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Quinn, Lawrie
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rammell, Bill
Tynan, Bill


Rapson, Syd
Walley, Ms Joan


Raynsford, Nick
Ward, Ms Claire


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wareing, Robert N


Rendel, David
Watts, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
White, Brian


Rowlands, Ted
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Roy, Frank
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ruane, Chris



Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Winnick, David


Ryan, Ms Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wise, Audrey


Savidge, Malcolm
Wood, Mike


Sawford, Phil
Woolas, Phil


Sedgemore, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Sheerman, Barry



Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Singh, Marsha
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Mike Hall.


NOES


Chope, Christopher
Leigh, Edward


Fallon, Michael
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paterson, Owen



Tredinnick, David


Gill, Christopher



Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Tellers for the Noes:


Gray, James
Mr. David Wilshire and


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — London Bridge Rail Crash

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]

Sir John Stanley: I suppose that it is inevitable that the seriousness with which rail accidents are treated depends partly on whether there has been serious injury or loss of life. In some rail accidents, mercifully, there is no loss of life or serious injury, but those accidents nevertheless deserve to be treated every bit as seriously as those in which there have been casualties.
The London Bridge rail accident, on 8 January 1999, falls into the latter category. Although, miraculously, no one was killed or injured, the accident was, by any yardstick, extremely serious. It exposed—not for the first time—the serious flaws still present in our rail safety system.
The accident involved two commuter trains—a Thameslink train and a Connex train—that converged, in the evening rush hour, on the same line on a viaduct, as a consequence of the Connex train going through a red light. Nine of the 16 coaches were derailed, and almost 300 passengers were put at risk.
There is little doubt that, with a slightly different point of impact, at slightly higher speed, with the possibility of one or more of the coaches being toppled over the viaduct down into Spa road, we could have had on our hands a human catastrophe every bit as serious as the appalling Paddington rail crash of a few weeks ago. Yet, despite the immense seriousness of the accident, the response both of the rail companies and of the Health and Safety Executive in putting information into the public domain has been lamentably inadequate.
The three rail companies, Railtrack, Connex and Thameslink, have conducted what they describe as an "internal industry investigation". On 14 January, six days after the accident, I wrote to the then chairman of Railtrack, Sir Robert Horton, asking for a copy of the report when it was available. Today, exactly 10 months after the accident, I am still waiting for that report. Worse still, Railtrack has now told me that it does not intend to publish the full report, and may not publish anything at all.
Last Thursday, 4 November, Railtrack wrote to me as follows:
Railtrack will be producing a summary of our internal investigation report and this should be available by the end of the year, subject to legal scrutiny and the agreement of the other parties concerned.
The railway companies seem to have been more concerned about protecting themselves from litigation than with making themselves accountable to the travelling public. The report should have been published in full months ago. There has been a reprehensible failure of public accountability by the railway companies concerned.
The performance of the Health and Safety Executive has been no better. I have been pressing Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for months to ensure that the full HSE account

of the accident was put into the public domain. Yet, on 5 October, I received a letter from the Minister for Transport, Lord Macdonald, which said:
HSE will not be publishing a separate accident investigation report".
Apparently, all that would be made available was a press notice.
The House will appreciate from the date of that letter that it could not have been more appallingly timed. On the very day that Lord Macdonald was sending it to me, the Paddington rail disaster, as a result of which 31 people so far have lost their lives, took place.
Following receipt of that letter, I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions; I believe that it was the most vehement letter that I have written to any Minister on any subject in my 25 years in the House. I said that Lord Macdonald's reply was unacceptable, and that the Secretary of State must reverse the decision of his junior Minister and of the Health and Safety Executive not to publish a separate report into the London Bridge rail accident.
The Secretary of State, to his credit, did precisely as I asked and reversed the decision. As a result, on 27 October, the HSE finally published a pretty thin three-and-a-half-page accident report. The Secretary of State's reply to me read:
It is not the practice of the Health and Safety Executive to issue a separate public report except in the most serious of accidents.
If that is the HSE's policy, it should be radically changed. It is simply not acceptable that the HSE should publish separate accident reports only when there is, effectively, loss of life in rail accidents. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions must now instruct the HSE to bring about a basic change in policy so that, after any rail accident involving a serious risk to members of the public, a separate accident report is published.
I said that the three-and-a-half page report published by the HSE was thin, and one critical piece of information has yet to be disclosed. We were told that the cause of the London Bridge accident was that the driver of the Connex train went through a red light at nearly 40 mph. It turns out that the same driver had previously taken another train through a red light six months earlier. We have been told that the reason why the train went through the red light was "human error", but that is not an adequate explanation. The travelling public are entitled to know what explanation was given by the driver of the Connex train as to why he went through the red light. Was he unsighted? If so, why? Was he distracted in some way? If so, how? Was he suffering from some lack of concentration? If so, why? The travelling public are entitled to know what explanation the driver gave for going through the red light, having previously gone through both a double yellow light and a single yellow light. I have given the Minister prior notice of that question, among others, and I hope that he will answer it when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the accident to which he refers was in my constituency. Has he asked the HSE to answer the following questions? Has it in the past had occasion to report on similar accidents with a similar breach of the rules—the passing of red


lights—and, if so, what recommendations has it made and what sanctions has it imposed under its powers? What view does the HSE take of the fact that, as of this moment, it will be four years before the safety system is in place for the junction in question and others?

Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those two points. They are pertinent and I shall address the latter question in a moment.
I shall now deal with the issue of prosecutions for the London Bridge crash. There are two potential prosecuting authorities—the Crown Prosecution Service and the railway inspectorate, which is part of the HSE. I have been in correspondence with both bodies and I have been staggered by the replies that I have received. The reply that I received from the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. David Calvert-Smith, read:
You ask whether papers have been submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to this accident and whether a prosecution is under consideration. To date we have received no papers from the police.
The reply I received from the chief executive of the HSE, Miss Jenny Bacon, was similar:
You also ask whether we have received relevant papers from the police. Railway Inspectorate took charge of the investigation a few hours after the accident. The police involvement was limited and to our knowledge they did not produce a detailed report.
So here we have a very serious accident, in which 300 people were put at risk, but in respect of which police reports were not submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service or to the railway inspectorate. That leads me to the matter of prosecution policy in relation to rail accidents. Frankly, I am baffled. It is apparent that one prosecution policy applies to the road system, and that a completely different policy applies to the railways.
As the House knows, motorists get prosecuted every day of the week for going through red lights. However, it seems that going through a red light on the railway system confers almost complete immunity from prosecution in almost any circumstance, even though the risk of large-scale loss of life is substantially greater.
An extremely interesting article on prosecution policy by the Health and Safety Executive appeared in The Independent on 16 October. It began by stating:
The Health and Safety Executive brought prosecutions over just one train accident last year, during which the number of 'significant' accidents increased to 104, a jump of nearly 15 per cent.
In the wake of the Paddington disaster, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions said that he was considering removing safety responsibilities from Railtrack. In the light of the HSE' s approach to prosecutions, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman should consider removing prosecution responsibilities for rail accidents from the HSE and transferring them to the Crown Prosecution Service. That would at least ensure a far greater degree of consistency between prosecutions on the road system and prosecutions on the rail system.
Finally, I shall deal with future train safety measures in the light of the London Bridge crash. The rail safety regulations introduced in August this year require Railtrack and the rail operating companies to introduce a train protection system throughout the rail network by the end of 2003. That is more than four years from now—far too slow and leisurely a time scale to bring about the critically important improvements needed in the rail safety system.
The vulnerability of the present system to driver error is all too clear. The crashes at Southall, London Bridge and Paddington were all occasioned by trains going through red lights. Indeed, the travelling public might reasonably conclude that the present system is frighteningly fallible in terms of human error. Too many people have already paid for that fallibility with their lives.
I believe that the four years to the end of 2003 is far too long to wait for the improvements that will come when a train protection system is installed throughout the network. I urge the Secretary of State to review that date and hope that he will take steps, as a matter of urgency, to shorten the time scale and ensure that such a system is in place in the shortest possible time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Let me begin, as is usual, by congratulating the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on securing the debate. I also thank him for raising this important subject and for letting me know in advance the key questions that he intended to raise, the answers to which I shall endeavour to provide.
Before I deal with the right hon. Gentleman's questions, and go on to summarise the Government's approach to rail safety in the light of the more recent appalling tragedy at Ladbroke Grove, it will benefit the House if I briefly describe the main aspects of the London Bridge rail crash of 8 January 1999. The accident occurred at about 17.25 at the Spa Road junction, near London Bridge station. The 15.51 Connex South Eastern service from Dover Priory to London Charing Cross collided side on with the 16.22 Thameslink Brighton to Bedford train. Four Connex train coaches and five coaches of the Thameslink train were derailed.
The accident caused severe disruption to rail services from London Bridge, Charing Cross and Cannon Street stations. Thankfully, there were no fatalities and only minor injuries to a small number of people: four were taken to hospital, but were not detained. Immediately after the accident, the electric current was cut off from all lines around the scene and the emergency services were called. Two hundred and eighty-two people were evacuated from the Connex and Thameslink trains.
However, another train—the 17.25 from London Bridge to Guildford—was trapped between London Bridge station and the accident site, from which about 100 people were also evacuated. The Health and Safety Executive report concluded that the evacuation of passengers from that train was not well organised. Some passengers were left to find their own way about half a mile along the track to London Bridge, and were fortunate to escape injury despite the electric current having been cut off.
In response to certain deficiencies in the training and experience of staff dealing with emergency situations, which became apparent during the HSE investigation, Her Majesty's inspectorate of railways has taken steps to ensure that those are fully addressed by the companies concerned. In particular, the Connex train operating companies have changed their emergency procedures to ensure that a responsible person is appointed to deal with each train affected by a major incident, and to arrange the evacuation of passengers where necessary.
Those, then, are the main features of the accident, and one practical upshot of the investigation of the circumstances surrounding the crash. Let me now turn to the questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman, which seem to me to fall into three groups.
First, the right hon. Gentleman asked specifically what explanation was given by the driver of the Connex train for going through the red light. The answer is that the driver continues to believe that he had a green signal and that he heard the bell for the automatic warning system associated with the signal. However, technical evidence and testing carried out as part of the inquiry proved that that could not have been the case. Weather conditions at the time were poor, with poor visibility. It is possible that that had an influence on what happened, but that is only speculation.
I should add that there is no record of any previous signals passed at danger—SPADs, as they have become known—at the Spa Road junction in question. The driver has been permanently removed from driving duties following the accident.
The second group of questions asked by the right hon. Gentleman relate to possible prosecution following the accident and to the publication of reports of investigations into it. The right hon. Gentleman asked why no papers in relation to the accident have been submitted by the police to the CPS, and also why no prosecution has been initiated by the HSE. The explanation is that the investigation of the accident was undertaken by an inspector from HMIR, which used its enforcement powers under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The police have not investigated the accident. It was HSE's assessment that there was no justification for a prosecution.
I should add that successful prosecution of individuals under section 7 of the 1974 Act requires evidence of a degree of negligence amounting to recklessness. A momentary lapse of concentration in an otherwise attentive individual does not normally satisfy that test. It was felt in this case that there was such a momentary lapse, and that other factors may have had an influence. There was, therefore, no justification for a prosecution. I should also remind the right hon. Gentleman of the failure of the attempted criminal prosecution of the driver in the Watford crash.
On the broader issue of publication, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the initial decision of the HSE not to publish a separate accident report. I am in no way seeking to minimise the seriousness of the accident near London Bridge but, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it is not the practice of the HSE to issue a separate public report except in the cases of the most serious accidents. In normal circumstances, therefore, the details of accident investigations such as that undertaken at London Bridge are published in Her Majesty's railway inspectorate's annual report. The report covering 1998–99 is to be published on 1 December. However, in the light of the understandable public concern aroused by the tragedy of Ladbroke Grove, it was decided that it was in the public interest to publish the full report on the London Bridge accident immediately, and it was published on 27 October.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the publication of the full report of the Railtrack internal investigation. That is essentially a matter for Railtrack, but he knows from earlier correspondence with my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport that Railtrack has said that it is producing a summary report for publication, subject to legal scrutiny and the agreement of the other parties concerned. I received confirmation today that it remains Railtrack's intention to publish that summary report.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman asked connected questions about the installation of train protection systems. In particular, he asked why the train protection warning system, TPWS, would not be installed until the end of 2003. This is absolutely not the occasion to seek to score party political points, but it is perhaps a pity that the previous Government were not more proactive on the matter. This Government have worked as quickly as possible to find a practical solution, and the Railway Safety Regulations 1999, laid before Parliament on 10 August, require TPWS to be introduced and operational across the railway network by the end of 2003 at the latest. That date was chosen as a challenging but realistic target. Significantly, the industry has now agreed to investigate measures for accelerating that process. No alternative method of train protection could be installed in anything like that time scale.
On the installation of automatic train protection—ATP—on that part of the network operated by Connex, let me say this. ATP is currently installed on the Chiltern line, Heathrow Express and Great Western as a pilot scheme. In addition, it will be fitted to all the high-speed lines as they are upgraded: the west coast main line, the east coast main line, and Midland Mainline. The channel tunnel rail link will also get full ATP.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has asked Sir David Davies to report before the end of the year with his initial assessment of the effectiveness, practicability and cost of train protection systems. That information will be available to Lord Cullen, who is conducting the Ladbroke Grove inquiry, and Professor Uff, who is conducting the Southall inquiry, and they will jointly consider train protection systems. The Health and Safety Commission will advise the Government on any recommendations that they make.
The Deputy Prime Minister also agreed with rail industry leaders at the rail safety summit on 25 October an immediate programme of improvements designed to drive up safety standards in the wake of the Paddington rail crash. There was agreement in principle on a range of practical steps to rebuild confidence in the rail industry.
There will be a review of consistent standards of driver training by train operating companies. A nationwide independent confidential reporting system will allow all staff to phone in safety concerns. Implementation of TPWS on track and trains will be accelerated. The means to accelerate the development programme for ATP systems will be identified. There will be immediate investigation of all incidents involving SPADs to a common standard. There will be urgent action on the 22 steps required by the Health and Safety Executive for reducing SPADs. Finally, a consistent approach to safety


management, embracing best practice, across the network will be established. A further rail safety summit will report on progress on 30 November.
In summary, therefore, the decision to introduce TPWS, the Cullen and Davies inquiries, the work being undertaken on SPADs and the rail safety summit held on 25 October, to be resumed on 30 November, all demonstrate this Government's overwhelming commitment to safety on our railways. We are now at a critical point, at which all those responsible for running our railways must endeavour to

create a new national safety culture that will enable all parts of the industry to work together to improve safety. Only then can we begin to rebuild the public's confidence in a safe and efficient rail industry.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate, which has permitted the House to return to these vital issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.